Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

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.
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
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:
RelevanceDefaultDate
    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
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      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

        -

        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

        <h1>Appellant's Passive Abetment in Illegal Export Case Results in Reduced Penalty</h1> <h3>Surya Prakash Kothari Versus Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin</h3> The appellant, Shri Surya Prakash Kothari, was found to have passively abetted in the attempted export of red sanders disguised as granite slabs. Despite ... Smuggling - red sanders - It appeared to the department that Senthil Murugan @ City Raja and Vasudevan @ Ravi had engaged themselves in the act of attempting export of Red Sanders in the guise of granite slabs - absolute confiscation - penalty - Held that: - it appears the main perpetrators of the foiled attempted export of red sanders had gone to great lengths to plan and execute the modus operandi. It also appears to reason that the consignment of granite slabs might have been camouflage cargo to be presented for Customs examination to be possibly substituting later within the consignment of red sanders in another identical container on which the same container number and other markings had been got done. Penalty u/s 114 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that: - while there is nothing on record to allege that Shri Kothari had conspired or connived with the main protagonist in the attempted export of red sanders, he will definitely have to take the blame for having facilitated the entire modus operandi by allowing use of his IEC and also allowing bank account to be used by Shri S. Vasudevan - penalty is very much imposable on Shri Kothari. However, taking note of the fact that no active abetment, connivance or conspiracy with the main perpetrator has been alleged or brought out in the SCN, penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs is certainly on the higher side and therefore reduce the same to ₹ 3,00,000/- Appeal allowed in part. Issues: Attempted export of red sanders disguised as granite slabs, abetment by the appellant, imposition of penalty under Section 114 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962.Analysis:1. Attempted Export of Red Sanders Disguised as Granite Slabs:- The case involved intercepted containers containing red sanders disguised as granite slabs, revealing a sophisticated smuggling operation.- The perpetrators used a fictitious firm to export the red sanders, substituting them for the declared granite slabs during customs examination.- Investigations pointed towards a coordinated effort to deceive customs officials and attempt illegal export of red sanders.2. Abetment by the Appellant:- The appellant, Shri Surya Prakash Kothari, was alleged to have facilitated the smuggling operation by lending his IEC to the conspirators and allowing his bank account for financial transactions.- The appellant's actions were deemed as passive abetment, as he did not actively participate in the smuggling but enabled the illegal activities to take place.- The appellant's negligence in verifying the parties involved in the export transactions was highlighted as a contributing factor to the smuggling attempt.3. Imposition of Penalty under Section 114 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962:- The penalty under Section 114 (i) was imposed on the appellant for his role in abetting the attempted export of red sanders.- The legal provision allows for penalties up to three times the value of the goods involved in the prohibited export.- Despite no active connivance with the main perpetrators, the appellant was held liable for his facilitation of the smuggling operation, leading to the imposition of a penalty of &8377; 3,00,000.4. Judicial Decision:- The appellate tribunal acknowledged the appellant's passive abetment in the smuggling attempt and reduced the penalty from the initial &8377; 10,00,000 to &8377; 3,00,000.- The tribunal emphasized that while the appellant did not actively conspire in the smuggling, he benefited from the illegal activities by securing repeat orders and safeguarding his financial interests.- The judgment clarified that the penalty reduction was based on the absence of active abetment or connivance with the main perpetrators, maintaining the integrity of the rest of the impugned order.This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI highlights the complexities of the case involving attempted smuggling of red sanders, the appellant's role in facilitating the illegal activities, and the legal implications under Section 114 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found