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 reduces penalty for misdeclaration of goods, emphasizes due diligence</h1> <h3>Caravel Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs Hyderabad</h3> Caravel Logistics Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs Hyderabad - TMI Issues:The issues involved in the judgment are the penalty imposed on the logistic service provider under section 112(b) and section 114AA of the Customs Act 1962 for a consignment declared as assorted chappals but found to contain mobile spare parts/mobile accessories upon inspection.Summary:Issue 1: Penalty under section 112(b) and section 114AAThe appellant, a logistic service provider, filed an Import General Manifest (IGM) declaring a consignment as assorted chappals based on the Bill of Lading description. Subsequently, upon inspection, it was discovered that the consignment actually contained mobile spare parts/mobile accessories. The appellant requested an amendment to the IGM as per the importer's instructions. The Department imposed penalties under section 112(b) and section 114AA of the Customs Act 1962. The appellant argued that they were not aware of the actual contents of the container and had acted based on the information available. The appellant's counsel contended that there was no evidence of their involvement in the misdeclaration. However, the Department argued that the appellant had access to information indicating the presence of other items besides chappals in the container during the amendment process. The Tribunal found that while there was no ulterior motive, the appellant's negligence in not verifying the discrepancy in descriptions warranted a penalty. Consequently, the penalty under section 112(b) was set aside, and the penalty under section 114AA was reduced to Rs 50,000.The judgment highlights the importance of due diligence and verification in declaring consignment contents accurately, even when amendments are requested by importers. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's lack of malicious intent but emphasized the need for vigilance in ensuring consistency between documentation and actual goods.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
