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>High Court confirms Tribunal decision on misdeclaration of goods, upholds confiscation & penalty reduction under Customs Act</h1> <h3>RAJGUHAN EXPORTS & IMPORTS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI</h3> The High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision in a case involving misdeclaration of goods, confirming the confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of ... Misdeclaration of goods - import of RBD Palmolein Oil (edible grade) - consignment did not conform to the standards - Confiscation of goods - Redemption fine & penalty - Wrong description of goods - Held that:- reply given by the suppliers on 11-3-1999, as regards the mistake committed by the filling point staff is only an afterthought as the same having been given long after the test conducted by the Port Authorities. If the supplier had found the same even before the point of dispatch, nothing prevented them from informing the Importer about the mistakes committed. No justification to interfere with the order passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Proper application of confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.2. Compliance with issuing show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962.3. Imposition of redemption fine when goods are allowed for re-export.Analysis:Issue 1: Proper application of confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962The case involved an importer of RBD Palmolein Oil, where the goods were found to be misdeclared as coconut oil instead of Palmolein Oil. The supplier admitted to the mistake in filling the drums with the wrong product. The authorities initiated penalty proceedings based on deliberate misdeclaration, considering the financial benefit the importer would have gained due to the error. The authorities held the goods liable for confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, along with misdeclaration under the Foreign Trade and Development Act, 1992. The Tribunal confirmed the confiscation but reduced the penalty imposed.Issue 2: Compliance with issuing show cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962The appellant questioned the confiscation and penalty imposition without issuing a show cause notice, alleging a violation of Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal's order did not address this specific procedural aspect. However, the Tribunal found the imposition of the penalty to be arbitrary and reduced it based on the facts of the case. The appellant's argument regarding the violation of principles of natural justice due to the lack of a show cause notice was not explicitly addressed in the judgment.Issue 3: Imposition of redemption fine when goods are allowed for re-exportThe authorities imposed a redemption fine on the goods, even though they were allowed for re-export and would not reach the Indian market. The appellant contested the imposition of the redemption fine in this scenario. The Tribunal did not delve into the necessity or justification for imposing a redemption fine in a case where the goods were permitted for re-export and not intended for the Indian market.In conclusion, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, dismissing the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal without costs. The Court found no justification to interfere with the Tribunal's order regarding the confiscation, penalty reduction, and imposition of the redemption fine.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
