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>Appeal success: Innocent misdeclaration overturns penalty, upholds confiscation.</h1> <h3>JINDAL (INDIA) LIMITED Versus COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS</h3> The appeal was filed timely challenging a Customs order. Additional documents were admitted to demonstrate good faith. A misdeclaration of machine ... Penalty and Redemption Fine Issues:1. Timeliness of appeal filing and receipt of order.2. Admission of additional documents.3. Misdeclaration of machine specifications.4. Confiscation and penalties imposed.5. Justification for penalty imposition.6. Legal interpretation on penalty imposition criteria.7. Consideration of intention in penalty imposition.Analysis:1. The appellant filed an appeal challenging a Customs order dated 18-2-1985, received on 11-4-1985, within the statutory time limit. The JDR's doubt on communication date was clarified, confirming the appeal's timeliness.2. The appellant sought to introduce two documents under Rule 23 to demonstrate their bona fides. Both parties agreed, and the documents were admitted as relevant evidence.3. The case involved a misdeclaration of a machine's specifications during import clearance, leading to confiscation and penalties. The discrepancy in spindle diameter led to Customs action under Section 111(d).4. The Collector confiscated the goods and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 30,000, along with a personal penalty of Rs. 50,000. The appellant did not dispute the confiscation but contested the penalties.5. The appellant argued that the misdeclaration was unintentional, supported by a settlement with suppliers for compensation. They contended that the penalty was unwarranted due to the supplier's mistake.6. The JDR defended the penalty, citing potential revenue loss and invoking Section 112A of the Customs Act for penalty imposition in misdeclaration cases.7. The Tribunal considered the intention behind the misdeclaration, emphasizing the lack of fraudulent intent. Citing legal precedents, the Tribunal ruled that the misdeclaration was innocent, not deliberate, warranting only a nominal fine without a penalty.8. The Tribunal overturned the penalty but upheld the confiscation and redemption fine, noting the leniency of the Collector's initial decision and the supplier's compensation to the appellant. The order was modified accordingly, setting aside the penalty.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
