Loading...

Top
Help
×

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 characters 0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / TMI Blogs / RSS

2026 (9) TMI 1432

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ers of HP brand were imported but not declared in the invoice and packing list. In addition, power banks and HDMI cables were also found in the consignment without any declaration in the invoice or the packing list. Since used printers require permission from Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology and permission of Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), the offending goods were liable for confiscation on account of noncompliance and misdeclaration, the original authority held that the impugned goods were liable for confiscation and accordingly, it was allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine, duty along with interest and also imposed penalty under Section 112(a)(v), Section 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 19....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... taxes and goods listed at Table-2A [paragraph No.14.4.1 of the Order-in-Original dated 14.06.2019] were cleared as there was no offence recorded on these goods. With regard to penalty, it is submitted that penalty under Section 114AA is to be imposed only in cases of involving fraudulent exports; hence, the same cannot be sustained. 3. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) on behalf of the Revenue submits that since there was misdeclaration of the goods and the goods were restricted, imposition of redemption fine and penalties were justified; hence, the impugned order needs to be sustained. 4. Heard both sides. The appellant in this case is aggrieved by imposition of redemption fine and penalty on the goods that were allowed to ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ons of the statute cannot do so. This position has been explained clearly by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI v. Kirloskar Pneumatics Company 1996 (84) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) in which it was held as under : "According to these sub-sections, a claim for refund or an order of refund can be made only in accordance with the provisions of Section 27 which inter alia includes the period of limitation mentioned therein. Mr. Hidayatullah submitted that the period of limitation prescribed by Section 27 does not apply either to a suit filed by the importer or to a writ petition filed by him and that in such cases the period of limitation would be three years. Learned Counsel refers to certain decisions of this Court to that effect. We shall assum....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....rt. This Section also does not give the Adjudicating Authority the right to give a conditional redemption saying "you can redeem only if you agree to re-export". In case of prohibited goods the adjudicating authority has only two options : (a) to allow redemption on payment of fine; or (b) to not allow redemption. 13. In view of the above, we find that the condition in the Order-in-Original that the goods should be re-exported after redemption is liable to be set aside and we do so." 7. In view of the above, I do not find any justification in imposition of redemption on the goods to be reexported; hence, the same is set aside. However, misdeclaration having been admitted, the penalty under Section 112(a)(i) of ....