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>Court upholds duty demand for misdeclaration but reduces penalty and interest.</h1> <h3>ARMITY S PATEL Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI</h3> ARMITY S PATEL Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI - 2014 (310) E.L.T. 313 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:Violation of Transfer of Residence Rules, Misdeclaration of year of manufacture, Differential duty demand, Confiscation of goods, Imposition of penalty, Demand of interest, Redemption fine amount.Violation of Transfer of Residence Rules:The appellant imported a car under Transfer of Residence Rules but returned to Dubai before completing the required stay in India. The year of manufacture was found to be May 2003, not 2001 as declared. The misdeclaration of material particulars was established, leading to a violation of Transfer of Residence Rules. The appellant's argument of declaring based on dealer's invoice was rejected as the manufacturer's list price and depreciation were considered for valuation.Misdeclaration of Year of Manufacture:The appellant declared the year of manufacture based on the dealer's documents, but the manufacturer confirmed it to be May 2003. The valuation was based on the manufacturer's list price, and depreciation was applied. The differential duty demand of Rs. 20,81,411 was upheld as the misdeclaration was proven.Confiscation of Goods:The car imported under Transfer of Residence was found liable for confiscation due to misdeclaration of material particulars and violation of Transfer of Residence Rules. The provisions of Section 111(m) and 111(o) were attracted, justifying the confiscation of the vehicle. The appellant's argument against the confiscation was dismissed.Imposition of Penalty:A penalty of Rs. 30,31,727 was imposed on the appellant under Section 114A of the Customs Act. However, since the duty demand was confirmed under Section 125, not Section 28A(1), the penalty imposition was deemed unsustainable in law. The penalty under Section 114A was set aside.Demand of Interest:Interest of Rs. 9,50,316 was demanded under Section 28AB, which applies when duty demand is confirmed under Section 28. As the duty demand was confirmed under Section 125, the demand for interest under Section 28AB was deemed inapplicable and set aside.Redemption Fine Amount:A redemption fine of Rs. 10 lakhs was imposed, which was reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs considering the total value of the car and the appellant's intention not to sell it. The reduced redemption fine was upheld. The demand towards interest under Section 28AB and the imposition of penalty under Section 114A were set aside as unsustainable in law.This judgment upheld the differential duty demand, reduced the redemption fine, set aside the demand for interest and penalty, and disposed of the appeal accordingly.
TaxTMI 