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

2013 (5) TMI 490

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Jindal The appellants have challenged the impugned order imposing redemption fine and various penalties on the appellants. 2. The brief facts of the case are that M/s. Montu Enterprises, the importer filed one Bill of Entry wherein they have imported a consignment from Dubai in container No. IPXU 2127381. As per the packing list, there were 440 cartons of various toys declaring the assessable v....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....the container were meant for another party viz. M/s. H.D.Associates, Mumbai which were sent from Hong Kong to Dubai for further shipment to M/s. H.D.Associates who had to clear those goods. This contention is supported by various correspondences between the supplier and the appellants. Therefore, there was no intention of mis-declaration of the impugned goods by the appellants. Accordingly, redemp....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ontaining 263 cartons of digital cameras and 150 cartons of wrist watches. If the goods were not intercepted, the same would have been cleared without claiming the ownership by M/s. H. D. Associates as the actual owner of the goods viz. digital cameras and wrist watches. Therefore, we hold that the goods are liable for confiscation. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order hol....