Just a moment...

βœ•
Top
Help
πŸš€ New: Section-Wise Filter βœ•

1. Search Case laws by Section / Act / Rule β€” now available beyond Income Tax. GST and Other Laws Available

2. New: β€œIn Favour Of” filter added in Case Laws.

Try both these filters in Case Laws β†’

×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedbackβœ•

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 (9) TMI 701

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Member (T)]. -  The Commissioner of Customs in the impugned order dt. 6-6-2001 held : "For the reasons stated above, I order confiscation of the impugned texturised fabrics, totally valued at Rs. 13,17,848/- under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. I however, allow redemption thereof on payment of a fine of Rs. 7 lakhs. I impose a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs. On redemption, the duty shall....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ere was an evasion of Rs. 11,82,795/- of Customs Duty. The goods were seized and proceedings were held. The Commissioner after hearing the appellant decided as indicated above. 3. Arguing the case for the appellant Shri Ashok Mehta, ld. Counsel submits that in the instant case, Bill of Entry was presented on 26-2-2001. Sample was drawn on 24-3-2001 and test report was received on 26-3-2001. ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e penalty are too harsh and therefore, prays that both the redemption fine and penalty may be drastically reduced. 4. Ms. Ananya Ray, ld. DR submits that in the instant case, the goods were imported. The appellant knew full well as to what they were importing and therefore, the contention that they had no intention to misdeclare the goods, is not tenable. She submits that the value of the go....