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>Tribunal upholds misdeclaration of goods as non-basmati rice instead of Basmati rice. Penalties imposed.</h1> <h3>JATIN AND COMPANY Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, (ICD), NEW DELHI</h3> JATIN AND COMPANY Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, (ICD), NEW DELHI - TMI Issues: Misdeclaration of goods admitted to be exported.Analysis:1. The main issue in this appeal was whether there was a misdeclaration of goods admitted to be exported. Non-basmati rice was admitted to be exported, but customs detected that the goods were mis-declared as Basmati rice during a preliminary examination. Subsequent testing confirmed the misdeclaration.2. The appellant argued that the misdeclaration was a mistake, as non-basmati rice packets were loaded instead of basmati rice. The appellant notified the authorities upon discovering the error, claiming there was no deliberate intention to misdeclare the goods. Therefore, the appellant contended that penalties and fines should not be imposed.3. The appellant further contended that any penalty should be examined under section 114AA of the Customs Act 1962, which requires mens rea for penal provisions. The appellant argued that without mens rea, no penalty should be levied.4. The Revenue supported the adjudication, stating that the appellant only explained the error after detection during the preliminary examination. The authorities passed orders when the appellant waived service of the show cause notice.5. The Tribunal noted that the misdeclaration was established through examination and testing, and the appellant's plea of ignorance and blaming workers was unfounded. Section 113 applied for the confiscation of goods due to misdeclaration. The value of the goods was determined, and the redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 15.00 Lakhs based on the value provided by the appellant.6. Regarding the penalty of Rs. 20.00 Lakhs under section 114(i), the Tribunal found it appropriate to invoke this section, ruling out the applicability of section 114AA. Despite the risk taken by the appellant in attempting to export non-basmati rice, a concession was made to reduce the penalty to Rs. 15.00 Lakhs due to the appellant's admission of misdeclaration. The appeal was partly allowed based on the concessions made.
TaxTMI 