Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        <h1>Tribunal Upholds Confiscation & Penalties for Unauthorized Export of Nuclear Grade Graphite Blocks</h1> <h3>Nickunj Shah, Nickunj Eximp Enterprise Pvt Ltd, Piyush Sanghavi Versus Commissioner of Customs (Export) ACC, Mumbai</h3> Nickunj Shah, Nickunj Eximp Enterprise Pvt Ltd, Piyush Sanghavi Versus Commissioner of Customs (Export) ACC, Mumbai - 2015 (316) E.L.T. 291 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues Involved:1. Confiscation of nuclear grade graphite blocks.2. Imposition of penalties on the appellant firm and its director.3. Requirement of export license for nuclear grade graphite.4. Applicability of Section 113(d) and Section 114 of the Customs Act.5. Validity of appellant's claims of bona fide belief and previous exports.6. Legality of absolute confiscation versus conditional release.Detailed Analysis:1. Confiscation of Nuclear Grade Graphite Blocks:The appellant, M/s Nickunj Eximp Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., attempted to export nuclear grade graphite blocks to Iran and Dubai without the requisite export license, leading to their confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The graphite blocks were confirmed as nuclear grade by BARC, having purity levels and density meeting the criteria for nuclear grade materials. The export of such materials to Iran is prohibited as per the Foreign Trade Policy and various notifications and guidelines issued by the Department of Atomic Energy and DGFT.2. Imposition of Penalties on the Appellant Firm and Its Director:Penalties of Rs. 30 lakhs each were imposed on the appellant firm and its director, Mr. Nickunj Shah, under Section 114 of the Customs Act. The adjudicating authority justified the penalties based on the value of the goods and the deliberate attempt to export prohibited items. The Tribunal upheld these penalties, noting the significant implications of exporting nuclear grade materials without proper authorization, especially in the context of nuclear terrorism.3. Requirement of Export License for Nuclear Grade Graphite:The Tribunal emphasized that the export of nuclear grade graphite requires a specific license from the Department of Atomic Energy, as stipulated in various public domain documents, including notifications and resolutions. The appellant's argument that they were unaware of this requirement was dismissed, given their previous dealings with nuclear materials and their knowledge of the procedures for exporting such items.4. Applicability of Section 113(d) and Section 114 of the Customs Act:The Tribunal held that the provisions of Section 113(d) were applicable as the goods were brought to the customs area for export without the necessary license, constituting an attempt to export prohibited goods. The penalties under Section 114 were deemed appropriate given the deliberate and malafide conduct of the appellant in attempting to export the goods and creating a web of fictitious transactions to conceal the source of the graphite blocks.5. Validity of Appellant's Claims of Bona Fide Belief and Previous Exports:The appellant's claim of bona fide belief based on previous exports was rejected. The Tribunal noted that there is no estoppel in customs transactions, and previous errors by customs authorities do not justify repeating the same mistakes. The appellant's knowledge of the restrictions and their deliberate attempt to mislead authorities further undermined their claims of bona fide belief.6. Legality of Absolute Confiscation Versus Conditional Release:The Tribunal upheld the absolute confiscation of the goods, emphasizing the adjudicating authority's discretion under Section 125(1) of the Customs Act. Given the prohibited nature of the goods and the international implications, absolute confiscation was deemed appropriate. The Tribunal also noted that the appellant's attempt to export the goods without the necessary license constituted a significant offense.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the nuclear grade graphite blocks and the penalties imposed on the appellant firm and its director, Mr. Nickunj Shah, while setting aside the penalty on Mr. Piyush N. Sanghvi, Partner of M/s Parth Enterprises, due to lack of direct involvement in the export attempt. The order emphasized the importance of adhering to export regulations, especially concerning sensitive materials like nuclear grade graphite.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found