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>Challenged duty demand order over confiscated goods: Classification, misdeclaration, penalty issues</h1> <h3>Trishaa Overseas Versus Commissioner of Customs (NS-III) Raigad</h3> Trishaa Overseas Versus Commissioner of Customs (NS-III) Raigad - 2022 (379) E.L.T. 225 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:1. Enhanced assessable value and duty demand2. Confiscation of impugned goods and penalty imposition3. Dispute over revision in classification4. Allegations of deliberate evasion of customs duties5. Misdeclaration of goods and rejection of declared value6. Correctness of classification by the Textile Committee7. Legal authority of the impugned order for recovery of duty, confiscation, and penaltyIssue 1: Enhanced assessable value and duty demandThe appellant challenged an order enhancing the assessable value to &8377; 45,74,066 from &8377; 11,29,709, resulting in a duty demand of &8377; 82,21,792. The appellant filed a bill of entry with declared values for various garments, but discrepancies were found during examination, leading to re-assessment and increased duty liability.Issue 2: Confiscation of impugned goods and penalty impositionThe impugned goods were confiscated under section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with a penalty imposed under section 112. The appellant contested the confiscation and penalty, arguing against any complicity in consigning undeclared goods, while acknowledging duty liability on the undeclared items.Issue 3: Dispute over revision in classificationThe appellant's main contention was the revision in classification by the adjudicating authority based on the advice of the Textile Committee. The appellant disputed the reclassification of certain garments, leading to an increase in duty liability, and questioned the diligence of the adjudicating authority in following proper procedures.Issue 4: Allegations of deliberate evasion of customs dutiesThe appellant disputed the finding that they deliberately attempted to evade customs duties. The appellant argued that the adjudicating authority had not adequately considered relevant tariff descriptions and bills of entry, and had relied heavily on the advice of the Textile Committee.Issue 5: Misdeclaration of goods and rejection of declared valueThe appellant was accused of misdeclaring the composition of garments, which led to the rejection of declared values for assessment. The appellant contested this accusation, stating that the claimed classification was in line with the composition indicated by testing of samples.Issue 6: Correctness of classification by the Textile CommitteeThe classification of certain garments by the Textile Committee was questioned by the appellant, who argued that the size and composition of the samples warranted classification under specific tariff items, and the Textile Committee had overlooked key factors in their assessment.Issue 7: Legal authority of the impugned order for recovery of duty, confiscation, and penaltyThe legality of the order for recovery of duty, confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties was challenged by the appellant. The appellant contended that apart from the duty liability on specific items, the other detrimental consequences were not justified, leading to a request for setting aside the impugned order.This detailed analysis covers the various issues raised in the legal judgment, highlighting the key arguments and contentions put forth by the appellant in challenging the orders and decisions made by the adjudicating authority and the Textile Committee.
TaxTMI 