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
2022 (2) TMI 805 - AT - CustomsPenalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act 1962 - evasion of anti-dumping duty by over valuating the goods imported from China - Principal Commissioner even though the show cause notice did not require the appellant to show cause imposed a penalty upon the appellant under section 112(a) of the Customs Act - HELD THAT - It is a fact that the show cause notice was not issued to the appellant. It was issued only to five persons including Amit Agarwal who is the Director of the appellant. The appellant has stated that since it was not required to file reply to the show cause notice no reply was filed - Show cause notice is the basis on which any order can be passed against a person. This is the basic requirement of the principles of natural justice. As the show cause notice was not issued to the appellant the appellant did not file any reply. The appellant cannot be faulted for not filing a reply since the show cause notice did not call upon the appellant to file a reply. The impugned order against the appellant deserves to be set aside. It would therefore not be necessary to examine whether the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence had the jurisdiction to issue the show cause notice under section 28(4) of the Customs Act - the impugned order in so far as it imposes a penalty of Rs. 10, 00, 000/- on the appellant under section 112(a) of the Customs Act deserves to be set aside and is set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|