Appeal allowed as importer not liable for duty, setting aside demand under Section 28. The appeal was allowed as the appellant, based in Dubai, was found not to be the importer and did not file the Bill of Entry. The goods were released to ...
Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.
Provisions expressly mentioned in the judgment/order text.
Appeal allowed as importer not liable for duty, setting aside demand under Section 28.
The appeal was allowed as the appellant, based in Dubai, was found not to be the importer and did not file the Bill of Entry. The goods were released to another party after payment of duty and fine, leading to the conclusion that the demand under Section 28 could not be imposed on the appellant. The demand should have been recovered under Section 125(2) according to legal precedents, resulting in the setting aside of the demand and penalty imposed on the appellant.
Issues: Duty demand and penalty imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act on the appellant.
Analysis: The appellant, based in Dubai, arranged the supply of a car in India, which was cleared by Shri Cyril Anand Fernandez. The car was later sold to Shri Murli Manohar Pandey, who had the car seized and confiscated. Shri Murli Manohar Pandey paid the customs duty and redemption fine under Section 125(2) of the Customs Act to release the car.
The appellant's counsel argued that the appellant, although involved in planning the operation, should not be held responsible for duty payment as he was not the importer and did not file the Bill of Entry. Referring to legal precedents, the counsel contended that duty should be collected under Section 125(2) when confiscated goods are released, and not under Section 28.
The Assistant Commissioner representing the Revenue supported the findings of the impugned order, which demanded duty and imposed a penalty on the appellant.
Upon review, the Member (Judicial) found that the appellant was not the importer and did not file the Bill of Entry. As the goods were released to Shri Murli Manohar Pandey after payment of duty and fine, the demand under Section 28 could not be upheld against the appellant. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in a similar case, it was concluded that the demand should have been recovered under Section 125(2), not Section 28. Therefore, the demand and penalty against the appellant were set aside, and the appeal was allowed.
Full Summary is available for active users!
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
of 
Join Channel
TaxTMI 
