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 →

M/s. Sheth Developers Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import) , Mumbai-I

2016 (1) TMI 190 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Levy of anti dumping duty - Delay in conducting search - Held that:- It is apparent that they mis-declared the tiles as Ceramic tiles which could have resulted in huge loss of anti dumping duty, therefore the goods are liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act. Ld. Counsel prayed for reduction in fine. He has not been able to inform the Bench as what is margin of profit to enable us to determine appropriate amount of fine and penalty. At the same time, we do find .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

llingness to take back the goods supplied to the importer. - Since duty paid before issuance of SCN - Redemption fine and penalty is reduced - Decided partly in favour of assessee. - APPEAL NO. C/1033/04 - Final Order No. A/3182/2015-WZB/CB - Dated:- 6-8-2015 - Mr. P.S. Pruthi, Member (Technical) And Mr. Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri N.D. George, Advocate : For the Petitioner Shri M.K. Mall, Asstt. Commissioner (A.R.) : For the Respondent ORDER Per : P.S. Pruthi The appellant imported good .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hat he knew about import of items declaring them as Ceramic Tiles. He agrees to pay differential duty. Accordingly, he paid ₹ 51,59,542/- on 25/9/2003 towards anti dumping duty. In the subsequent statement tendered on 26/9/2003 he stated that they had placed an order for Ceramic Tiles whereas their supplier supplied vitrified tiles and they had already written to the supplier rejecting the consignment. It was found that the tiles did not bear country of origin name and address of manufactu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

; 51,59,542/- paid towards anti dumping duty was appropriated. 2. Ld. Counsel for the appellant stated that the commercial invoices accompanying the goods described them as Ceramic tiles, moreover vide their letter 19/7/2003 to the supplier have rejected the tiles having defects. In the subsequent correspondence they requested the supplier to take back the goods. The supplier vide letter dated 22/9/2003 gave willingness to take back the goods. Ld. Counsel prayed for leniency and reduction in red .....

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