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>Imported toys reclassified in customs dispute; penalty removed for good faith error.</h1> <h3>M/s. Novel Digital Electronics Versus The Commissioner Customs (Imports), Customs House</h3> M/s. Novel Digital Electronics Versus The Commissioner Customs (Imports), Customs House - 2015 (321) E.L.T. 29 (Mad.) Issues:Classification of imported goods under tariff headings 950380.01 and 950349.09, Requirement of Specific Import Licence, Confiscation of goods under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Act.Classification of Goods:The appellant imported toys, specifically a Talking Parrot, classified under tariff heading 950380.01. The Department argued that the goods fell under Exim Code No.950349.09, requiring a Specific Import Licence. The adjudicating authority held that the goods were restricted and required a special import licence, confiscating the goods under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) ruled in favor of the appellant's classification under tariff heading 950380.01. However, the Tribunal, following a decision by a Larger Bench, classified the goods under 950349.09, setting aside the Commissioner's order.Penalty Imposition:The Tribunal upheld the penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of the Act. The appellant argued that the penalty was unjustified as they acted under a bona fide belief in the correctness of their classification. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in a similar case, the appellant contended that penalties should be imposed only in cases of deliberate defiance of the law, contumacious conduct, or dishonesty. The Court agreed with the appellant, finding that the penalty was not justified as the appellant acted in good faith throughout the proceedings.Conclusion:The Court modified the Tribunal's order, setting aside the penalty imposed on the appellant. The Court emphasized that penalties should be reserved for cases of deliberate misconduct, not for technical breaches made in good faith. The appellant's diligent pursuit of the correct classification under a genuine belief warranted leniency, leading to the Court's decision to remove the penalty.
TaxTMI 