Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Mr. Francis Goel Proprietor M/s. Tek Chand International Versus Commissioner of Customs (Port-Export) & Customs, Excise and Service Tax

2015 (5) TMI 284 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Waiver of pre deposit - Evasion of custom duty - question on quantum of deposit amount ordered by the tribunal - Suppression of value of goods - Held that:- It is seen from the orders of the Adjudicating Authority as well as the order of the Tribunal, that on demand, the appellant has paid a sum of ₹ 73,34,856/- towards Anti-Dumping Duty and a sum of ₹ 35,31,843/- was appropriated towards customs duty. It is to be noted that vide final notification No.121/2006-Cus. dated 26.12.2006, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

xcess of the final notification dated 26.12.2006 at ₹ 60.00 lakhs, we are inclined to accept the plea of the appellant. However, taking note of the demand of customs duty, at this point of time, the amount shall not be refunded. - Partial stay granted. - Civil Miscellaneous Appeal No.755 of 2015 and M.P. No. 1 of 2015 - Dated:- 28-4-2015 - R.Sudhakar And K.B.K.Vasuki JJ. For the Appellant : Mr.Raghavan Ramabadran For the Respondents : Mr.A.P.Srinivas Judgment (Delivered by R.SUDHAKAR,J.) T .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

fully paid already? ii) Whether the 2nd Respondent has erred in directing the Petitioner/appellant to deposit ₹ 60 lakhs towards total demand of ADD of ₹ 60 lakhs, when ₹ 73 lakhs already stands adjusted towards the said demand of ADD? 2. The brief facts of the case are as follows: In the course of search conducted in the premises of the relative of the appellant, the officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi, found that the appellant had imported silk fab .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e with an intent to evade customs duty and to over-value the said imports in order to evade provisional Anti-Dumping Duty imposed on such imports, show cause notice was issued demanding customs duty of ₹ 1,88,90,986/- and provisional anti-dumping duty of ₹ 2,75,39,026/- vide provisional notification No.52/2006-cus. dated 31.5.2006 along with imposition of penalty. 3. Subsequent to the above said show-cause notice, the provisional anti-dumping duty was reduced to ₹ 60.00 lakhs v .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ppeal before the Tribunal along with an application for waiver of pre-deposit. 6. The Tribunal after hearing the submissions, ordered pre-deposit holding as follows: "1. Ld. counsel explains that provisional anti-dumping duty was imposed on the imported goods by Notification No.52/2006-Cus. dt.31.5.2006. The duty so imposed was reduced by final Notification No.121/2006-Cus. dt. 26.12.2006. As a result of which, the provisional duty of ₹ 2.75 crores (approx.) imposed is reduced to S .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

s a trade remedy measure, there shall be no compromise at this stage for which appellant is directed to deposit ₹ 60,00,000/- (Rupees Sixty lakhs only) by 25.3.2015. Subject to such deposit, there shall be waiver of predeposit of balance demand and stay of recovery thereof till disposal of appeal. Compliance to be made on 6.4.2015." 7. Aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal, the present appeal has been filed by the appellant. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitt .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

he appellant had deposited the entire anti-dumping duty. 9. Heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned standing counsel appearing for the Department and perused the materials placed before this Court. 10. It is seen from the orders of the Adjudicating Authority as well as the order of the Tribunal, that on demand, the appellant has paid a sum of ₹ 73,34,856/- towards Anti-Dumping Duty and a sum of ₹ 35,31,843/- was appropriated towards customs duty. It is to be .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

referred to as the exporting country or territory) to India at less than its normal value, then, upon the importation of such article into India, the Central Government may, by notification in the Official Gazette, impose an anti-dumping duty not exceeding the margin of dumping in relation to such article Explanation ....... (a).... (b)... (c)... (2) The Central Government may, pending the determination in accordance with the provisions of this section and the rules made thereunder of the norma .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

lected as is in excess of the anti-dumping duty as so reduced." 12. From a reading of the above-said provision makes it clear that if anti-dumping duty is reduced and the amount so paid is in excess of the demand, the said amount shall be refunded. 13. It is the case of the appellant that the Tribunal, without taking note of the excess payment made, had ordered pre-deposit of ₹ 60.00 lakhs, which is not in consonance with the above-said provision. 14. Taking note of the above-said pro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version