Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the authority at the factory of clearance could demand duty and impose penalty where the export bond had been executed before another competent bond-accepting authority, and whether the appellate remand order required interference.
Analysis: The exports were effected under bonds executed before the Maritime Commissioner, and the authority enforcing the bond conditions was the authority with whom the bond had been filed and accepted. The proper course for the factory officer was only to intimate the bond-accepting authority or forward the matter for appropriate action. In these circumstances, the lower authority could not assume jurisdiction to demand duty or impose penalty. The earlier decision on the same point was applied to the facts of this case.
Conclusion: The challenge failed. The order of remand and the view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) were not interfered with.
Final Conclusion: The revision was rejected, and the matter was left to be dealt with by the original authority in accordance with the bond-accepting authority's jurisdiction.
Ratio Decidendi: Recovery of duty and imposition of penalty for non-production of export proof under a bond must be taken only by the authority with whom the bond was executed and accepted.