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>Importers' Penalties Overturned: Specific Demands Required for Customs Act Compliance</h1> <h3>MONO ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY (P) LTD. Versus CC., AMRITSAR</h3> MONO ACRYLIC MANUFACTURING COMPANY (P) LTD. Versus CC., AMRITSAR - 2001 (138) E.L.T. 694 (Tri. - Del.) Issues involved:1. Challenge to order of confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty in importer's appeal.2. Challenge to penalties imposed on importer's employees under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.3. Lack of specific demand of duty in show cause notice.4. Imposition of penalty under Section 114A without specific demand of duty.5. Justification of penalties imposed on employees under Section 112(a).6. Provisional release of goods and pending finalization of assessment.Analysis:1. The appellants imported acrylic off-cuts/sheets and declared the value in the bill of entry. The Customs authorities conducted examinations and alleged misdescription and undervaluation. The Dy. Commissioner ordered confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalties on the importer and employees. The lower appellate authority upheld the order, leading to the present appeals challenging the order of confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties.2. The penalties imposed on the importer's employees under Section 112(a) were contested. The show cause notice did not contain specific allegations against the employees, raising concerns about the sustainability of the penalties. The order of the lower appellate authority upholding the penalties was deemed unsustainable due to the lack of specific allegations in the show cause notice.3. The show cause notice lacked a specific demand for duty against the importer. Despite allegations of undervaluation, there was no quantified demand for duty recovery in the notice. The absence of a specific demand raised questions regarding the invocation of penalties under Section 114A of the Customs Act.4. The imposition of penalties under Section 114A without a specific demand of duty was deemed unjustified. The penalties had a quantitative nexus with the duty demanded under Section 28(2) of the Act. Without a quantified demand of duty, the imposition of penalties under Section 114A was considered unwarranted.5. The justification for penalties imposed on the importer's employees under Section 112(a) was based on findings in the order of adjudication implicating the employees. However, the lack of specific allegations in the show cause notice against the employees raised doubts about the sustainability of the penalties.6. The imported goods were provisionally released, and the assessment remained provisional. Without finalization of the assessment, penal actions against the importer and employees, as proposed in the show cause notice, were deemed unwarranted. The orders passed by the lower authorities were set aside, allowing Customs authorities to finalize the assessment before proceeding further in accordance with the law and principles of natural justice.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
