Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2015 (4) TMI 235

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... orted are certain components of the hot mix plant and not a complete plant. Since the respondent has misdeclared the goods as hot mix plant, the Commissioner came to the conclusion to confiscate the goods. Once confiscation is ordered, penalty is automatic. As the respondent/importer had admitted the position and their evidence is also very clear stating that they had imported only parts of hot mix plant and not entire plant, the above-said decision in the case of IVRCL (supra) does not apply to the facts of the present case. Further, the correspondences between the respondent/importer, the supplier and the local representative clearly show that the importer was aware that the goods were only components and not entire plant. - Following .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s of the case are as follows: The respondent filed Bill of Entry No.376273 dated 29.1.2002 for clearance of the goods declared as Hot mix plant Batch type with electronic controls and bag type filter arrangement 160TPH . On examination of the imported goods, the Commissioner of Customs held that the goods imported by the respondent under Bill of Entry dated 29.1.2002, namely, screen drum, electrical cabinets, geared motors and conveyor belts, bearings etc. were only components of complete hot mix plant and not a complete hot mix plant and fixed the value of the imported goods at DM 5.50 lakhs CIF; consequently, denied exemption from duty in terms of Notification No.17/2001-Cus. and ordered confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of th .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... er section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, or (b) who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping,concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under section 111, shall be liable, - (i) in the case of goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under this Act or any other law for the time being in force, to a penalty not exceeding the value of the goods or five thousand rupees, whichever is the greater; (ii) in the case of dutiable goods, other than prohibited goods, to a penalty not exceeding the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or fiv .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ts and the correspondences between the respondent/importer, the supplier and the local representative, the Commissioner came to the conclusion that the importer misdeclared the goods. Further, it is admitted by the respondent/importer that the goods imported are certain components of the hot mix plant and not a complete plant. Since the respondent has misdeclared the goods as hot mix plant, the Commissioner came to the conclusion to confiscate the goods. Once confiscation is ordered, penalty is automatic. 10. As the respondent/importer had admitted the position and their evidence is also very clear stating that they had imported only parts of hot mix plant and not entire plant, the above-said decision in the case of IVRCL (supra) does no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... pointed out that under Section 112(a), any person, who, in relation to any goods, does or omits to do any act which act or omission would render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111, or abets the doing or omission of such an act, shall be liable to pay penalty not exceeding the duty sought to be evaded on such goods or five thousand rupees, whichever is greater. Thus, considering the facts, the Managing Director is liable to pay penalty, which is fixed at ₹ 5,000/-. 12. In the light of the above, following the above-said decision of this Court, the question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue and against the respondent/importer. Accordingly, the order of the Tribunal stands set aside and the order of the Com .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates