Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2015 (10) TMI 2259 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2015 (10) TMI 2259 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - 2016 (332) E.L.T. 835 (Tri. - Del.) - Confiscation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine - Misdeclaration of goods - goods imported were different from the goods ordered - Held that:- The supplier in this case is a well established multi-national on M/s Basell International Trading FZE. It is also seen that the documents relating to the import goods were released by the bank after receiving the balance amount from the appellant. It is also an admitted f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

re-export on the ground that the import has become economically unviable due to anti dumping duty. Further it has been mentioned in the primary adjudication order that LDPE was more expensive than PP and therefore, it appeals to reason that the appellant would not collude for getting the supply of cheaper goods while paying for more expensive goods. - It is obvious from this observation of the primary adjudicating authority that no foul play was suspected, let alone established, by him. Indeed, .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

JJ. For the Petitioner : Shri A.L. Mehta, Consultnt For the Respondent : Shri B.B. Sharma, A.R. ORDER Per R. K. Singh This appeal has been filed against the Order-in-Appeal dated 24.2.2010 which upheld the Order-in-Original dated 16.11.2009, in terms of which redemption fine of ₹ 10 lakhs was imposed in lieu of confiscation and for allowing re-export and penalty of ₹ 5 lakh was also imposed. 2. The facts of the case are that appellant filed two Bills of Entry for clearance of goods .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

emption fine and also imposed penalty as above. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of the primary adjudicating authority. 3. In its appeal before CESTAT, the appellant has strenuously argued that (i) orders for the goods were placed on 20.7.2009 (ii) the price of LDPE was higher than the price of PP (iii) part payment for the goods was sent prior to shipment of the goods (iv) payment was made by the appellant against documents through Bank and when the mistake was pointed out to the sup .....

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 for the appellant referred to the judgment of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of C.C.E., Patna vs. Usha Martin Industries 1997 (94) ELT 460 (SC) to advanc the proposition that the CBEC Circulars are binding on the departmental authorities but not on the assessees 4. Ld. A.R. for Revenue on the other hand contended that (i) it was a case based on information (ii) the goods were found mis-declared (iii) the whole exercise seems to have been done for the purpose of avoiding anti-dumping duty on .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

made in advance. There is evidence of confirmation of receipt of those orders by the supplier on 20.7.2009 itself. The supplier in this case is a well established multi-national on M/s Basell International Trading FZE. It is also seen that the documents relating to the import goods were released by the bank after receiving the balance amount from the appellant. It is also an admitted fact that when the appellant took up the matter with the supplier immediately on coming to know that goods import .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

duty after placement of orders. Also, even in a case where anti-dumping duty is imposed after the orders for supply of goods are placed but before their import the importer can legitimately request for re-export on the ground that the import has become economically unviable due to anti dumping duty. Further it has been mentioned in the primary adjudication order that LDPE was more expensive than PP and therefore, it appeals to reason that the appellant would not collude for getting the supply o .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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