Just a moment...
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
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, for computing penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962, the duty amount is to be worked out on the tariff-rate duty chargeable under Section 12(1) or on the duty amount refunded to the importer after fresh assessment.
Analysis: The duty "chargeable" for the purpose of Section 116 was held to be referable to the charging provision, namely Section 12(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, and not to the assessment or quantification of duty under Sections 14 and 15. The distinction between chargeability and assessment was treated as material, and the statutory scheme was read to require use of the tariff rate. The order further held that Section 116 imposes strict liability on the person in charge of the conveyance and that the provision is not confined to compensating revenue loss, but also serves a deterrent purpose.
Conclusion: The penalty under Section 116 is to be computed on the duty chargeable at the tariff rate under Section 12(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, not on the refunded or reassessed duty amount. The revision application failed.
Ratio Decidendi: For Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962, "duty chargeable" means the duty leviable under the charging provision and not the duty later quantified or adjusted on assessment; the provision operates as a strict-liability deterrent.