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>Court overturns order, grants relief to importer due to lack of evidence.</h1> <h3>M/s. Agarwal Industrial Corporation Limited Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore</h3> M/s. Agarwal Industrial Corporation Limited Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Mangalore - 2020 (373) E.L.T. 280 (Tri. - Bang.) Issues Involved:1. Mis-declaration of 'country of origin' in the bills of entry.2. Applicability of Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962.3. Imposition of redemption fine and penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.Issue-Wise Detailed Analysis:1. Mis-declaration of 'country of origin' in the bills of entry:The appellant was alleged to have mis-declared the 'country of origin' of bitumen shipments as UAE instead of Iran. The investigation revealed that the vessel MT CLAYTON II had loaded bitumen originally at Port Bandar Abbas, Iran, and then proceeded to Karwar Port. The import documents falsely indicated the port of loading/country of origin as Sharjah/UAE. The appellant contested that they declared the 'country of origin' based on documents provided by the supplier in Dubai and had no involvement in manipulating the documents.2. Applicability of Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962:The appellant argued that Section 111(d) and 111(m) were not applicable. Section 111(d) pertains to goods imported contrary to any prohibition, but the bitumen was not prohibited under any law. Section 111(m) applies when imported goods do not correspond to the value or particulars declared in the bills of entry. The appellant claimed no preferential duty rate and relied on supplier documents for the 'country of origin'. The court found no evidence of the appellant’s involvement in document manipulation and noted that the bitumen was not prohibited goods.3. Imposition of redemption fine and penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962:The Commissioner imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 25,00,000 and penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA. The appellant argued there was no mala fide intention or evidence of their involvement in document manipulation. The court referred to previous judgments, including Oriental Containers Ltd. vs Union of India, where it was held that if the importer is an innocent victim of fraud by the foreign supplier, confiscation and penalties are not justified. The court concluded that no mala fides were proven against the appellant, and both Section 111(d) and 111(m) were inapplicable.Conclusion:The court set aside the impugned order, finding no legal basis for the confiscation and penalties. The appeal was allowed, granting consequential relief to the appellant. The decision emphasized the lack of evidence implicating the appellant in the mis-declaration and upheld the principle that importers should not be penalized for fraud committed by foreign suppliers without their knowledge or involvement.
TaxTMI 