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 discontinued on 31-07-2025
If you encounter any issues or problems while using the new portal,
please
let us know via our feedback form
so we can address them promptly.
Home
Issues involved: Appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals) upholding confiscation of goods u/s 111(f) and imposition of penalty on appellant.
Summary: Issue 1: Confiscation of goods under Section 111(f) The appellant imported a ship for ship breaking under a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) listing specific parts. The steamer agent failed to list these items in the Import General Manifest (IGM). The original authority confiscated goods u/s 111(d) and 111(f), allowing redemption and imposing penalties. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld confiscation u/s 111(f) but set aside the penalty on the appellant. The appellant argued that as the ship was bought "as is where is," there was no need to separately list all items. The Tribunal noted that the MOA listed specific spare parts not considered part of the vessel, which should have been listed in the IGM. While upholding confiscation due to the steamer agent's failure, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 60,000 to Rs. 20,000, considering the appellant's lack of involvement in the mis-declaration by the steamer agent. Conclusion: The appeal was disposed of with the reduction of the redemption fine pronounced on 27-4-07.
|