TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the demand of customs duty, interest and penalty could be sustained on the ground that the importer had allegedly imported quantities in excess of the declaration made under Rule 5 of the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty) Rules, 2017.
Analysis: The imported goods and the eligibility of the exemption notification were not in dispute. The controversy was confined to whether the quantity imported exceeded the quantity declared under Rule 5. The scheme of the IGCR Rules requires prior intimation of the estimated quantity and value to the jurisdictional customs officer, transmission of that intimation to the port of import, execution of bond, and clearance of goods on that basis. Rule 8 permits recovery if the goods are not used for the intended purpose. Here, there was no dispute that the goods were used for the intended purpose. The record also did not show that the jurisdictional officer forwarded a wrong declaration or that the port officer cleared goods beyond what was declared. In the absence of any material identifying which customs officer committed the irregularity, the duty demand could not be fastened on the importer.
Conclusion: The demand of duty, interest and penalty was not sustainable and the appeal was allowed in favour of the assessee.
TaxTMI 
