<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Tribunal Reviews Misdeclaration Case on Imported Modems; Insufficient Evidence for Penalties, Case Remanded for Reassessment.</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78692</link>
    <description>The CESTAT, an Appellate Tribunal, addressed misdeclaration and undervaluation of imported goods, specifically modems and automated teller machine processors. The appellant, a registered company within a conglomerate, was involved in the case. The importer was held liable for misdeclaration, claiming goods as &#039;electrical and control switches&#039; instead of &#039;modems.&#039; The appellant allegedly facilitated the supply of finished &#039;modems.&#039; The tribunal found the order lacking details to justify penalty under u/s 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The stipulations for imposing penalties u/s 112(a) and 112(b) are distinct and require a detailed finding on the role of the person penalized. As the goods were confirmed for confiscation, the tribunal remanded the case to determine if conditions u/s 112(a) or 112(b) apply to the appellant. The appeal was allowed for remand.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2024 18:30:06 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2024 18:30:06 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=757147" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Tribunal Reviews Misdeclaration Case on Imported Modems; Insufficient Evidence for Penalties, Case Remanded for Reassessment.</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78692</link>
      <description>The CESTAT, an Appellate Tribunal, addressed misdeclaration and undervaluation of imported goods, specifically modems and automated teller machine processors. The appellant, a registered company within a conglomerate, was involved in the case. The importer was held liable for misdeclaration, claiming goods as &#039;electrical and control switches&#039; instead of &#039;modems.&#039; The appellant allegedly facilitated the supply of finished &#039;modems.&#039; The tribunal found the order lacking details to justify penalty under u/s 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The stipulations for imposing penalties u/s 112(a) and 112(b) are distinct and require a detailed finding on the role of the person penalized. As the goods were confirmed for confiscation, the tribunal remanded the case to determine if conditions u/s 112(a) or 112(b) apply to the appellant. The appeal was allowed for remand.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Fri, 21 Jun 2024 18:30:06 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=78692</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>