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>Tribunal Upholds Penalties for Customs Duty Evasion Scheme</h1> <h3>M/s. Shivam Newsprint Agency And M/s. K. Shyam International Versus C.C. (ICD) (TKD), New Delhi</h3> M/s. Shivam Newsprint Agency And M/s. K. Shyam International Versus C.C. (ICD) (TKD), New Delhi - TMI Issues:Penalties imposed on appellants for evasion of customs duty on newsprint by misuse of import facility.Analysis:The case involved the evasion of customs duty on newsprint through misuse of the concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 21/2002 Cus. The appellants imported newsprint in the name of non-functional small-time newspaper publishers and sold it in the open market, contrary to the actual user condition. The RNI certificate was obtained under false pretenses, and the appellants were found to have abetted in the duty evasion. The primary adjudicating authority confirmed the demand of customs duty and imposed penalties of Rs. 5 lakhs each on the appellants, considering their role in the evasion scheme.During the hearing, the advocate for the appellants did not appear, and the appellants contended that they were not importers and did not abet any evasion, arguing against the penalty imposition. The Departmental Representative argued that the appellants were involved in abetting duty evasion, justifying the penalties. The primary adjudicating authority detailed the involvement of other noticees in the evasion scheme, highlighting their connections with the appellants and their role in purchasing the imported newsprint at concessional rates. Despite no duty demand against the appellants, penalties were imposed based on their active participation in the evasion scheme.The Tribunal found that the penalty imposition was justified as the appellants were involved in abetting the smuggling of goods and were aware of the duty evasion scheme. The appellants' proprietor had paid a substantial amount towards differential duty, indicating their complicity in the evasion. The Tribunal upheld the penalties imposed, stating that the amount was reasonable and not arbitrary. The appellants' involvement in the evasion scheme and their awareness of the duty evasion warranted the penalty imposition, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
