Just a moment...

Top
Help
AI Drafter - (New and Powerful)

TaxTMI AI Drafter workflow from input facts to final legal draft Generate professional replies, appeals, opinions to Show Cause Notices, assessment orders, audit objections, and other legal communications using TaxTMI's AI Drafter.

Try Now
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2001 (3) TMI 538

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... [Order per : V.K. Agrawal, Member (T)]. -  The issue involved in this appeal filed by M/s. Ratan Udyog is whether the goods are liable for confiscation under the Customs Act and penalty is imposable for not declaring the content of the goods meant for export. 2. When the matter was called, no one was present on behalf of the appellants. It is observed from the appeal file that th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ty of Rs. 1,00,000/- under Section 113 of the Customs Act The learned SDR submitted that when the goods were declared fabrics there was no reason for the appellants to describe them as woven fabrics except for the purpose of claiming more draw-back and therefore the mala fide intention is apparent and as such the goods have been rightly confiscated and penalty has rightly been imposed that neither....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pellants had not given any satisfactory explanation as to why the goods were misdeclared. He observed that the appellants' defence before the Commissioner was that it was a genuine mistake and they had indicated the mistake themselves to the department. This has not been rebutted by the department before us. The appellants have also submitted copies of the letters which the Custom House Agent had ....