TaxTMI Login
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕
Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.
Just a moment...
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful) ✕ 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%
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
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether a personal penalty was exigible where the import declaration as to the machine specification was made on the basis of supplier documents but the goods, on examination, were found not to conform to the declared specification; (ii) Whether the redemption fine required reduction in the facts of the case.
Issue (i): Whether a personal penalty was exigible where the import declaration as to the machine specification was made on the basis of supplier documents but the goods, on examination, were found not to conform to the declared specification.
Analysis: The declaration in the bill of entry was supported by the purchase order, invoice, engineers' certificate and letter of credit showing the higher diameter, and the supplier later admitted its mistake and agreed to compensate the importer for the resulting losses. On the totality of the circumstances, the misdeclaration was found to be innocent and not deliberate, dishonest or made in conscious disregard of law. Although the goods were still liable to confiscation as an offence under the customs law, penalty under Section 112 was held to depend on the facts and circumstances and was not automatic in every economic offence.
Conclusion: The personal penalty was not sustainable and was set aside.
Issue (ii): Whether the redemption fine required reduction in the facts of the case.
Analysis: The goods were admittedly liable to confiscation, and the adjudicating authority had already taken a lenient view by imposing a fine of Rs. 30,000/- against the value of the goods. The importer was also to be compensated by the supplier for the loss caused by the mistake, and no further mitigation of the fine was warranted on the facts.
Conclusion: The redemption fine was not reduced and was upheld.
Final Conclusion: The order of confiscation was maintained, the redemption fine remained undisturbed, and the personal penalty was deleted.
Ratio Decidendi: Penalty under the customs law is discretionary and, where the declaration is innocently made without deliberate or contumacious conduct, confiscation may stand but personal penalty may be set aside.
TaxTMI 
