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>Importing firm's penalty reduced on appeal; Revenue's appeals dismissed. Judgment by Judge Anil Choudhary, 8th May 2014.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI-I Versus M/s DILMEET CORPORATION</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, MUMBAI-I Versus M/s DILMEET CORPORATION - 2014 (308) E.L.T. 711 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Penalty imposed on the ex-partner and firm under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty due to alleged import of radioactive goods.3. Abandonment of goods under Section 23 of the Customs Act.Issue 1: Penalty Imposed on Ex-Partner and FirmThe case involved cross-appeals arising from an Order-in-Appeal where a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the ex-partner and a reduced penalty on the firm under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, were contested. The appellant firm appealed against the penalty, while the Revenue appealed against the reduction of penalty on the firm and dropping of penalty on the ex-partner. The Tribunal took up the appeals together due to common facts and legal issues.Issue 2: Confiscation of Goods and Penalty for Import of Radioactive GoodsThe appellant firm was involved in importing Thorium Nitrite powder which was found to be radioactive. The Customs department seized the goods and issued a show-cause notice for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act. The Joint Commissioner of Customs imposed a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on the firm and Rs. 5 lakhs on the ex-partner under Section 112(a). The Commissioner (Appeals) confirmed the confiscation and upheld the penalty, citing the firm's prior knowledge of the goods' nature.Issue 3: Abandonment of Goods under Section 23 of the Customs ActThe appellant argued that they had abandoned the goods before clearance for home consumption by not opposing the auction sale and returning documents to the supplier's bank. They relied on Section 23, which allows abandonment before clearance. The Tribunal found that the firm had indeed abandoned the goods and reduced the penalty on the firm from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 2,00,000, considering the circumstances and actions taken by the appellant.In conclusion, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal of the importing firm by reducing the penalty imposed on them. The appeals of the Revenue were dismissed, and the judgment was pronounced on 8th May 2014 by Anil Choudhary, J.
TaxTMI 