Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Regal Impex Versus C.C., ICD, TKD, New Delhi

2015 (10) TMI 2259 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

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 fact that when the appellant took up the matter with the supplier immediately 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

o 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, the facts and circumstances of the case clearly point towards the absence of a .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 declared as LDPE. On examination, the goods were found to be Polypropylene (PP .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eld 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 suppliers, they reimbursed the payment made with regard to the goods through the .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ase 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 PP. It also cited in the case of C.C., Tuticorin vs. Sripathi Papers and Boar .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 imported were different from the goods ordered, the supplier immediately confessed 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

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 of cheaper goods while paying for more expensive goods. Indeed we find that pri .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

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

Go to Mobile Version