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

        Confiscation of Goods & Penalty Upheld for Violating Customs Act

        Commissioner of Customs (Sea) Custom House, Chennai Versus CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, & M/s Gaur Impex

        Commissioner of Customs (Sea) Custom House, Chennai Versus CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, & M/s Gaur Impex - 2009 (240) E.L.T. 166 (Mad) Issues Involved:
        1. Violation of conditions of the Advance Licence and applicability of section 111(o) of the Customs Act 1962.
        2. Liability of the second respondent to pay penalty under section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962.

        Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

        1. Violation of Conditions of the Advance Licence and Applicability of Section 111(o) of the Customs Act 1962:

        The second respondent imported copper scrap under the Advance Licence scheme, benefiting from Notification No.48/99-CUS, which allowed duty-free import subject to certain conditions, including the actual user condition and export obligations. The Department alleged that the second respondent falsely claimed to have a manufacturing unit, which was non-existent, thus violating the conditions of the licence. A show cause notice was issued, and the Adjudicating Authority found the second respondent guilty of mis-declaration, leading to the confiscation of goods under section 111(o) and imposition of a penalty under section 112(a).

        The Tribunal reversed this decision, stating that the proceedings were premature as the licence period had not expired when the goods were seized. It held that the Customs Authority could not refuse exemption based on an allegation of misrepresentation without the licence being cancelled by the Licensing Authority. The Tribunal relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Union of India vs. Sampat Raj Dugar, which stated that subsequent cancellation of a licence does not retrospectively render the import illegal.

        However, the High Court disagreed with the Tribunal's findings, emphasizing that the misrepresentation by the importer was undisputed. The Court held that the false declaration about having a manufacturing unit rendered the licence null and void, making the imported goods liable for confiscation under section 111(o). The Court cited the Supreme Court's decision in Sheshank Sea Foods Pvt. Ltd. vs. UOI, which upheld the Customs Authorities' power to take action under section 111(o) for breach of exemption conditions.

        2. Liability of the Second Respondent to Pay Penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962:

        The Adjudicating Authority imposed a penalty on the second respondent under section 112(a) for the mis-declaration and violation of licence conditions. The Tribunal, however, held that if the goods were not liable for confiscation, the penalty under section 112(a) would not arise. It allowed the goods to be cleared on merit rate, referencing a similar case where goods were cleared despite the licence being cancelled.

        The High Court found that the Tribunal erred in its decision. The Court reiterated that the importer's false declaration and lack of a manufacturing unit justified the confiscation of goods and imposition of a penalty. The Court emphasized that the fraudulent method used to secure the licence invalidated any claim to exemption or equitable relief. The Court set aside the Tribunal's order, reinstating the penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority.

        Conclusion:

        The High Court concluded that the second respondent's misrepresentation and violation of the Advance Licence conditions warranted the confiscation of goods under section 111(o) and the imposition of a penalty under section 112(a). The Court directed the Department to appropriate the retained Bank Guarantee towards the duty and penalty and to initiate recovery proceedings for any balance amount. The Tribunal's order allowing clearance of goods on merit rate was deemed unsustainable and was set aside.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found