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 rules importer must pay duty - absence of proof prevents demand.</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE Versus DINESH CHHAJER</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE Versus DINESH CHHAJER - 2008 (223) E.L.T. 436 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues:1. Demand of duty on the respondent for dealing in smuggled goods.Analysis:The Revenue appealed against an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, which dropped the demand of duty on the respondent for dealing in smuggled computer parts. The Commissioner imposed a penalty under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Customs Act but did not demand duty due to lack of evidence showing the respondent imported the goods. The Revenue challenged this decision, arguing that duty is demandable from the owner of the goods, relying on case law precedent.The investigations confirmed that the respondent was dealing in smuggled goods, leading to the imposition of a penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. However, the key issue was whether duty could be demanded from the respondent without evidence of importation. The Revenue invoked Sections 28 and 125(2) of the Customs Act to demand duty. Section 28 allows duty demand on the person chargeable with duty, typically the importer. Section 2(26) defines an importer as the owner or one holding himself out to be the importer.In this case, there was no evidence proving the respondent was the importer or held himself out as one. The investigations revealed he received smuggled goods from Calcutta but did not establish him as the owner or importer. Section 125(2) applies when goods are seized and confiscated, allowing duty demand on the owner or the person from whom the goods were seized. Since there was no seizure or confiscation in this case, Section 125(2) did not apply.Ultimately, the Tribunal held that duty can only be demanded under Section 28 on the person chargeable with duty, typically the importer. Without evidence showing the respondent imported the goods, duty could not be demanded from him. The case law cited by the Revenue pertained to seized goods, where Section 125(2) would apply. As there was no proof of importation by the respondent, the decision not to demand duty was deemed legally sound, and the Revenue's appeal was rejected.
TaxTMI 