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 confiscation of goods, sets aside penalties for weight mis-declaration. Appellants not found to act with malafide intent.</h1> <h3>M/s. Rupen Marketing Pvt. Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs, Mundra</h3> The Tribunal upheld the impugned orders for confiscation of imported goods and redemption fine due to mis-declaration of weight. However, the penalties ... Mis-declaration of declared weight of cargo - confiscation of the imported goods - redemption fine and imposition of penalty - Held that: - It is also observed that the packing list mentions the carton weight and net weight. We do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders of the lower authorities. However, we find that there is no allegation of malafide on the part of the appellants. We find that in the facts and circumstances of the instant case, imposition of penalty is too harsh a measure. We, therefore set-aside the penalties imposed on the appellants - impugned orders are upheld with the above modification of penalty clause - appeal disposed off. Issues: Confiscation of imported goods, redemption fine, imposition of penalty based on mis-declaration of weight.Analysis:1. The appeals were filed against a common Order-in-Appeal upholding impugned orders for confiscation of imported goods, redemption fine, and penalty due to mis-declaration of weight. The key issue was whether the actions by the lower authorities were correct.2. The details of excess quantity and penalties imposed for each appeal were presented. The appellants argued that the excess weight was due to packing material, denying mis-declaration. The Revenue's Authorized Representative contended the excess weight was substantial, justifying the penalties imposed.3. After considering arguments and records, the Tribunal agreed with the Revenue's Representative, noting the packing list's carton and net weight details. While finding no malafide intent by the appellants, the Tribunal deemed the penalties too harsh, leading to the penalties being set aside.4. Ultimately, the impugned orders were upheld, but with the modification of setting aside the penalties. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, with the operative part of the order pronounced at the conclusion of the hearing.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
