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>Customs penalty appeal based on misdeclaration of imported goods upheld but later overturned on procedural grounds</h1> <h3>Zubair Shaikh Versus Commissioner of Customs</h3> Zubair Shaikh Versus Commissioner of Customs - TMI Issues Involved:The issues involved in this case are the imposition of penalty under sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, confiscation of goods, misdeclaration of imported goods, procurement of import-export code illicitly, and the legality of invoking the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988.Imposition of Penalty under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962:The appellant appealed against the penalty imposed under sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) upheld the penalty, citing misdeclaration of imported goods under sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that the goods were not yet entered for import when seized and were consigned to another entity, M/s Petals Traders. Reference was made to previous tribunal decisions and a High Court ruling to support the contention that penalties should not apply unless goods were entered for import.Confiscation of Goods and Misdeclaration:The customs authorities confiscated the goods due to misdeclaration under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Authorized Representative stated that the appellant admitted to the illicit procurement of the import-export code and ownership of the goods. The imports were deemed to contravene the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulations) Act, 1992, justifying confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.Legality of Invoking Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988:The appellant challenged the invocation of the Prohibition of Benami Property Transactions Act, 1988, alongside the Customs Act, 1962, for charging consequences that typically apply to importers. It was argued that this Act should not be concatenated with the Customs Act, 1962, as it serves a distinct purpose related to benami property transactions. The impugned order was set aside due to the failure to sustain under the law, and the appeal was allowed.
TaxTMI 