Tax authority's substitution of projected figures with actuals overturned; original acquisition valuation upheld; transfer pricing issues remitted for...
Beneficial owner held liable for differential customs duty; royalties added under Rule 10(1)(c); confiscation, penalties under s.111(m), s.114A, s.112...
CESTAT examined penalties imposed on the appellants, acting as high sea sellers and job workers, under s.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for allegedly colluding with the importer to evade duty and wrongfully claim exemption on imported LCC paper rolls. The Tribunal held that penalty under s.112(b) requires clear proof of mens rea, i.e., that the person "knew or had reason to believe" the goods were liable to confiscation under s.111. The Dept. failed to adduce any evidence that the appellants had knowledge of, or participated in, the importer's fraud. Job-work documents were not found defective. CESTAT therefore set aside the penalties and allowed the appeals.
CESTAT examined penalties imposed on the appellants, acting as high sea sellers and job workers, under s.112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 for allegedly colluding with the importer to evade duty and wrongfully claim exemption on imported LCC paper rolls. The Tribunal held that penalty under s.112(b) requires clear proof of mens rea, i.e., that the person "knew or had reason to believe" the goods were liable to confiscation under s.111. The Dept. failed to adduce any evidence that the appellants had knowledge of, or participated in, the importer's fraud. Job-work documents were not found defective. CESTAT therefore set aside the penalties and allowed the appeals.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4819 
Join Channel 
