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>Customs Act Penalties Reduced on Appeal for Mis-declaration & Import Violations</h1> <h3>Shri Narinder Kumar, Shri Roshan Singh Versus C.C.E., New Delhi</h3> Shri Narinder Kumar, Shri Roshan Singh Versus C.C.E., New Delhi - TMI Issues:1. Penalty imposition under Section 112(a) and 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962 on appellants for mis-declaration and import of restricted goods.Detailed Analysis:The appeals were filed against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, regarding the confiscation of goods imported from China, which were declared as 'E Glass off SPEC Chopped Strand Mat (B Grade)' but were found to contain firecrackers instead. The Department seized the goods due to the restricted import of firecrackers. Show cause proceedings were initiated against the appellants for confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of penalties. The penalties were imposed under Section 112(a) and 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants contended that since the goods were confiscated and not released to them, penalties should not be imposed. Additionally, it was argued that one of the appellants, not being the importer, should not be penalized under Section 114 AA.The Tribunal acknowledged that the goods were mis-declared and undervalued, justifying their confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act. However, considering that the goods were not released to the appellant for use or sale, the penalties under Section 112(a) and 114 AA were reduced in the interest of justice for the appellant who imported the goods. The penalty amounts were reduced from Rs. 10.00 Lakh to Rs. 5.00 Lakh and from Rs. 20.00 Lakh to Rs. 10.00 Lakh, respectively.Regarding the penalty imposed on the other appellant who was not the importer but abetted the importation of prohibited goods, the Tribunal held that penalty under Section 114 AA could not be levied. However, since he abetted the importation leading to confiscation under Section 111, a penalty under Section 112(a) was justified. The penalty amount of Rs. 15.00 Lakh was reduced to Rs. 10.00 Lakh due to the appellant not benefiting from the confiscated goods.In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of both appeals by modifying the penalties imposed on the appellants, considering the circumstances of the case and the interest of justice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
