9911796707
Case Laws
Acts
Notifications
Circulars
Classification
Forms
Manuals
Articles
News
D. Forum
Highlights
Notes
🚨 Important Update for Our Users
We are transitioning to our new and improved portal - www.taxtmi.com - for a better experience.
⚠️ This portal will be fully migrated on 31-July-2025 at 23:59:59
After this date, all services will be available exclusively on our new platform.
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please let us know
via our feedback form
, with specific details, so we can address them promptly.
Follow us:
|
Home
Issues:
Illegal import of machinery and contravention of Customs Act and Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. Analysis: The case involved the illegal import of machinery and contravention of various provisions of the Customs Act and Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The appellant Department initiated steps to purchase two Fometa Fodder Producing Units based on a letter from the Prime Minister's Office. The machines were to be installed at specific locations as directed by the Director General, ICAR. The purchase was facilitated using a subsidy from the Prime Minister's Relief Fund. The machines were ordered from M/s. Fometa India Machines P. Ltd. without any mention of customs duty liability. Subsequently, an investigation into the import of similar units by other entities led to adjudication proceedings by the Collector of Customs against the appellant and others. The Collector found that the conditions of an ad hoc exemption order had been contravened, rendering the imported units ineligible for duty-free concession. As a result, the Collector confiscated two machines bought by the appellant and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 4 lakhs. The appellant contended that they were unaware of any wrongdoing on the part of the seller and believed the machines were exempt from customs duty. They argued that the purchase was made in good faith with the assistance of the Government of India and should not be held liable for the actions of others. On the other hand, the Revenue Department argued that the redemption fine could not be waived unless confiscation was challenged and set aside. They pointed out that the machines were intended for specific purposes, such as donation to Bharat Krishak Samaj and training of farmers, which had not been fulfilled, justifying the imposition of the redemption fine. Upon review of the case records and considering the submissions from both sides, the tribunal, noting that the appellant was a State Government entity, decided to reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 4 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh to serve the ends of justice. Consequently, the appeal was disposed of with the modified redemption fine amount.
|
