1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Just a moment...
1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available


2. New: βIn Favour Ofβ filter added in Case Laws.
Try both these filters in Case Laws β
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Don't have an account? Register Here
<h1>Customs Superintendent penalty waiver denied for allowing overvalued exports, evidence implicates in scheme.</h1> The Tribunal denied the waiver of a penalty of Rs. 25,000 imposed on a Customs Superintendent for allowing the export of overvalued consignments to obtain ... Waiver of pre-deposit - Penalty u/s 114(iii) - applicant is Superintendent of Customs and who gave Let Export Order in respect of the consignment which were highly overvalued to get undue drawback. - Held that:- In view of the statement by the co-noticee where he implicate himself as well as the applicant, that applicant was allowing the shipment of overvalued the goods for monetary consideration. We find that applicant had not made out a case for waiver of penalty. The Applicant is directed to deposit βΉ 25,000 within a period of eight weeks - stay granted partly. Issues: Waiver of pre-deposit of penalty under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962Analysis:1. The applicant, a Superintendent of Customs, sought waiver of a penalty of Rs. 25,000 imposed for allowing the export of overvalued consignments to obtain undue drawback.2. The applicant contended that the appeal was filed within the normal period of limitation on merits, as the appeal deadline fell on a weekend, and argued that penalties were not sustainable as he only gave let export order for two consignments, not all seven in dispute.3. The Revenue, however, supported the penalty citing evidence that the applicant allowed overvalued consignments for monetary consideration, referencing a statement by a co-noticee implicating both parties in the scheme.4. The Tribunal found the applicant failed to establish a case for waiver, directing the deposit of Rs. 25,000 within eight weeks, with compliance to be reported by a specified date for further appeal proceedings.