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 upholds duty reassessment, confiscation, fines, penalties. Appellant's waiver deemed final.</h1> <h3>M/s Aestrik Techno-Signs Versus Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi</h3> M/s Aestrik Techno-Signs Versus Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legality and propriety of the impugned order.2. Mis-declaration of goods and re-determination of value.3. Confiscation of goods under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act.4. Imposition of redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act.5. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 (a) read with Section 114AA of the Customs Act.Detailed Analysis:1. Legality and Propriety of the Impugned Order:The appellant argued that the impugned order was not legal or proper. They cited previous judgments (Handtex vs. Commissioner of Customs, Raigad and Nitish Tools Pvt. Ltd.) to support their claim that changes made during assessment do not necessarily indicate mis-declaration. The Tribunal found that the appellant had accepted the reassessment in writing and waived the right to a show cause notice and personal hearing, making the reassessment final and uncontested.2. Mis-declaration of Goods and Re-determination of Value:The appellant imported goods declaring a value of Rs. 15,141/-. Upon examination, the customs authorities found the actual value to be Rs. 9,21,951/-. The appellant accepted the enhanced value and requested the release of their consignment on nominal fine and penalty. The Tribunal noted that the appellant’s acceptance of the reassessment and waiver of a show cause notice and personal hearing meant the reassessment was final.3. Confiscation of Goods under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act:The goods were confiscated under Section 111 (m) due to mis-declaration of value. The Tribunal upheld this confiscation, noting that the declared value was only about 2% of the actual value. Section 111 (m) states that goods not corresponding in value with the entry made under the Act are liable for confiscation.4. Imposition of Redemption Fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act:The Additional Commissioner imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000/-, which was reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- by the First Appellate Authority. The Tribunal found this amount to be just and fair, as it was only about 11% of the assessable value of the goods (Rs. 9,21,951/-).5. Imposition of Penalty under Section 112 (a) read with Section 114AA of the Customs Act:A penalty of Rs. 90,000/- was initially imposed under Section 112 (a) read with Section 114AA, which was reduced to Rs. 40,000/- by the First Appellate Authority. The Tribunal upheld this penalty, noting that the duty sought to be evaded was over Rs. 1,50,000/-. The penalty imposed was found to be fair and in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act.Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, finding no reason to interfere with the decisions made by the lower authorities. The appeal was rejected, affirming the reassessment of duty, confiscation of goods, and the imposition of fines and penalties.
TaxTMI 