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 (6) TMI 948

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... on 3.6.2009 i.e. before the date of show cause notice which was issued on 10.12.2009. The IEC code is also authenticated by Superintendent Customs Ahmedabad. Revenue did not challenge the authenticity of this certificate. Neither have they done so at the time of hearing. It is also not shown that goods in commercial quantity cannot be imported by post parcel It is true that goods imported under an import license do not fall Chapter Heading 98.04. However, in this case the Counsel has rightly taken the stand that they are not importing goods under a license nor have they imported goods for personal use. Therefore, the goods not being covered under Chapter Heading 98.04, there is no violation on their part. Therefore there appears to be no .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... l Hong Kong and the consignee was M/s K. J. Imort Export, Ahmedabad. Invoices were also found in the parcels. The goods were valued at ₹ 1,17,60,480 (CIF value). The goods were seized on the belief that they were smuggled into India and the quantity and value of the goods was mis-declared. Follow-up action was taken in Ahmedabad. The proprietor of M/s K J Import Export, Shri Kamlesh Soni, in his statement on 09.07.09 before the Customs stated that the was doing everything on the instructions of one Shri Deepu alias Shri Deepak Ghanshyam. In the past also, consignments of memory cards were cleared on bills of entry at Ahmedabad through one Custom House Agent Shri Sundar Balan who is also an employee of Shri Leelaram Asudani. In his let .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... was being followed. So the goods should not have been intercepted in Mumbai. He further submitted that the letter dt. 9.7.2009 on which the department is placing reliance is not even part of the relied upon documents. On the other hand, he drew my attention to subsequent letters written by Shri Kamlesh Soni on 16 th November 2009, 6 th March 2010, 15 th March 2010 and 5 th April 2010. In the last three letters he specifically wrote that the goods should not be auctioned and he claimed ownership of the goods. These letters have been ignored by the adjudicating authority. Further, the signatures in the statements recorded on 9.7.2009 and 28.8.2009 do not tally and the style of writing is entirely different. 4.1 Again in the reply dt. 6.1. .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... serious contention and I proposed to address this issue first. Sections 111 (d) and 111(m) are reproduced below for convenience. SECTION 111. Confiscation of improperly imported goods, etc . - The following goods brought from a place outside India shall be liable to confiscation :- (d) any goods which are imported or attempted to be imported or are brought within the Indian customs waters for the purpose of being imported, contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force; (m) any goods which do not correspond in respect of value or in any other particular with the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under section 77 in respect thereof, .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... import license cannot be imported through post. It is true that goods imported under an import license do not fall Chapter Heading 98.04. However, in this case the Counsel has rightly taken the stand that they are not importing goods under a license nor have they imported goods for personal use. Therefore, the goods not being covered under Chapter Heading 98.04, there is no violation on their part. Therefore there appears to be no contravention of any law and violation of Section 111(d). As regards the alleged violation of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, I find that the Commissioner in his order has clearly stated that the show cause notice has not brought out any discrepancy in the declared quantity of the goods. Neither from the recor .....

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