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: (i) Whether penalty could be sustained against the appellant in the first appeal when the record did not establish his involvement in the import or undervaluation of the goods. (ii) Whether notices issued by the Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, were valid for purposes of duty demand under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether penalty could follow in the connected appeals.
Issue (i): Whether penalty could be sustained against the appellant in the first appeal when the record did not establish his involvement in the import or undervaluation of the goods.
Analysis: The material on record did not connect the appellant with the import covered by the relevant bill of entry. His statement referred only to earlier consignments imported by another company, and neither the show cause notice nor the adjudication order showed any participation by him in the import in question.
Conclusion: Penalty could not be imposed on the appellant, and the first appeal was allowed.
Issue (ii): Whether notices issued by the Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, were valid for purposes of duty demand under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether penalty could follow in the connected appeals.
Analysis: The notice was issued long after import and clearance of the goods, and the demand necessarily depended on the extended period. The notice was held to be invalid because the Assistant Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, was not the proper officer for issuing notice under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962. Since penalty required a valid foundation that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(m), penalty also could not be sustained.
Conclusion: The duty demand notice was invalid and the penalties in the connected appeals could not be sustained; the two appeals were allowed.
Final Conclusion: The entire penalty and duty demand foundation failed, resulting in relief to the appellant in all three appeals.
Ratio Decidendi: A penalty cannot be sustained where the record does not establish the appellant's involvement in the import, and a duty demand notice under the customs law issued by an not shown to be the proper officer is invalid, rendering consequential penalty unsustainable.
TaxTMI 
