TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Judge overturns penalties for importers and employees under Customs Act citing prior payment, referencing precedents.</h1> <h3>M/s KS OIL LTD AND OTHERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA</h3> M/s KS OIL LTD AND OTHERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA - 2014 (307) E.L.T. 179 (Tri. - Ahmd.) Issues: Imposition of penalties under section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962 on importers and their employees for defrauding customs duty.Analysis:1. The judgment pertains to multiple appeals involving importers and their employees, raising a common question regarding the imposition of penalties under section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962. The issue revolves around the defrauding of customs duty by an individual named Malleshwar Rao.2. The Adjudicating Authority had imposed penalties on the importers and their employees, alleging a failure to ascertain the correct identity of individuals involved in the fraud and a breach of business ethics by purchasing demand drafts not issued by their own bankers. However, the presiding judge found that the penalties were not sustainable based on the facts presented.3. The judge concluded that the importers and their employees could not be held liable for penalties as they had already discharged the customs duty along with interest for the goods imported. The judge reasoned that the actions of the importers, even if erroneous in business diligence, did not warrant penalties under section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962.4. Citing precedents such as *M/s ITW India Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2006(198) ELT.117 (Tri.-Bang.)* and *M/s Hetero Drugs Ltd vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai 2004(168) ELT.211 (Tri. Bang.)*, the judge supported the decision to set aside the penalties imposed on the importers and their employees.5. Consequently, the judge set aside the impugned order challenging the penalization and allowed the appeals in favor of the importers and their employees. The judgment was pronounced on 4.4.2014, providing relief to the appellants against the penalties imposed under section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962.
TaxTMI 