Just a moment...

Top
FeedbackReport
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Feedback/Report an Error
Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:
TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
By Case ID:

When case Id is present, search is done only for this

Sort By: ?
Even if Sort by Date is selected, exact match will be shown on the top.
RelevanceDate
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        Note

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Board confiscates goods under Customs Act for smuggling, fake docs. Accused held liable for penalties.

        COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA Versus CHANDIRAM LILARAM

        COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA Versus CHANDIRAM LILARAM - 2000 (124) E.L.T. 652 (Tribunal) Issues:
        1. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962.
        2. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962.
        3. Imposition of personal penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
        4. Review of the Commissioner's order by the Board.
        5. Appeal against the release of non-notified goods.

        Confiscation of Goods under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962:
        The Commissioner initially held that the goods seized were not liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) as there was no evidence to establish that they were smuggled into the country. The Commissioner noted that some goods had lawful Bills of Entry, indicating legal importation. The Board, however, disagreed, citing evidence of fake documents, under-valuation, and the connection of the goods to the accused, leading to a directive for confiscation.

        Confiscation of Goods under Section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962:
        The Board found that the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) based on substantial evidence linking the seized goods to unauthorized imports facilitated by the accused. The accused was deemed the mastermind behind the illegal importation scheme, financing imports, clearing goods on fake documents, and using various firms as fronts. The Board directed the Collector to apply for a correct determination of the case.

        Imposition of Personal Penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962:
        The Board held the accused personally liable for penalty under Section 112, emphasizing his central role in the illicit importation operation. The accused's involvement in negotiating with foreign suppliers, financing imports, and overseeing the clearance and delivery of goods implicated him as the key figure orchestrating the scheme.

        Review of the Commissioner's Order by the Board:
        The Board reviewed the Commissioner's decision to release non-notified goods and found it legally flawed. The Board highlighted evidence of fake documents, under-valuation, and the accused's direct involvement in the importation process, leading to a directive for confiscation and imposition of penalties.

        Appeal Against the Release of Non-Notified Goods:
        The Department appealed against the release of non-notified goods, arguing that they were illegally imported, undervalued, and cleared using fake documents. The Department contended that the goods should not have been released based on Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, finding no legal or factual basis to overturn the release of the goods.

        This comprehensive analysis covers the issues of confiscation of goods, imposition of penalties, review of decisions, and the appeal process, detailing the legal reasoning and evidence considered in each aspect of the judgment.

        Topics

        ActsIncome Tax
        No Records Found