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 Quality Export House Pte Ltd., Singapore Versus Commissioner of Customs, JNCH, Nhava Sheva

2016 (2) TMI 324 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Import of wrong goods - The declared importer refused to take the consignment - and therefore, the appellant, who was also a exporter of the consignment from the Singapore, approached the Revenue with a request to permit re-export of goods or to permit sale to a new buyer. - consignment was examined and it was found that it contained not only Blank Video Cassettes as declared in IGM but also 30 Panasonic Video Cameras, which were not declared in the IGM - request to permit re-export of goods or .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ter’s name nor it have the correct description of the product. - The importers have neither filed Bill of Entry nor claimed the goods and have practically abandoned the goods. It is seen that while there is a good reason to suspect the intention of the appellant, there is no evidence that the goods would have been mis-declared in the Bills of Entry. - Appellants allowed to re export the consignment. - Decided in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/86567/15 - A/85331/16/CB - Dated:- 14-1-2 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

same overseas supplier, the appellants had mis-declared the goods. From the EDI System in the IGM, it was traced that another consignment supplied by the appellants to M/s Agarwal Photo Sales, declared to be Blank Video Cassettes was awaiting clearance. Bill of entry in respect of the consignment was not filed at that time. The said consignment was examined and it was found that it contained not only Blank Video Cassettes as declared in IGM but also 30 Panasonic Video Cameras, which were not de .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

5 Commodity, Inkjet Paper Packing: Per Box of 120 pkts. MRP: 3000/- per box of 120 pkts. Date of Packing: March, 2012 Not intended for Retail Sale The examination was conducted in presence of Mr. M.L. Gupta, Proprietor of M/s Agarwal Photo Sales. On examination of the purchase and sale contract dated 2.4.2012, it was found that there was no date on the signature of both the parties. It was also noticed that the contract was between M/s Agarwal Photo Sales and the appellant, but the goods importe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of the imported goods) Rules, 2007 on the ground that the goods were mis-declared in respect of the brand, model etc. and some undeclared goods were found in the consignment. It was alleged that no data is available for determination of the value of the goods under Rules 4, 5, 7 & 8 of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of the imported goods) Rules 2007. It was asserted that these rules cannot be invoked and therefore value was refixe .....

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 duty was determined as ₹ 19,85,610/-. Penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs was also imposed on Shri M.L. Gupta. The demand was also confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). Aggrieved by the said order, the appellant are in appeal before this Tribunal. 2. The learned Counsel for the appellant asserted that it was a simple case where the importer had refused to pay certain advance payment against the supply of goods and therefore, refused to accept the contract and filed Bill of Entry. Learned Coun .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

iling Bill of Entry under Section 46 description is to be based on the invoices and not Bill of Lading. Therefore, this alleged discrepancies between description of goods and Bill of Lading cannot be a ground to reject the Bill of Lading and invoice. He further argued that the fact that the outer cartons contained name of different consignment on the label posted on the cartons cannot be a basis of alleging concealment. He argued that the content of the cartons match with the invoices. Therefore .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

d by importers and no Bill of Entry has been filed by them nor any import documents produced by them, the title of goods remains with the exporter. There is no justification on part of the Revenue in detaining the goods. 3. Learned AR relies on the impugned order. 4. We have considered the rival submission. We find that the entire case has been made on account of earlier mis-conduct and mis-declaration of the importer and exporter. In respect of this consignment also, there was certain signs whi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

aid case were as follows: - 2. The petitioner is a foreign based company engaged inter alia in the business of trade in electronics goods. By the present petition, petitioners are seeking a direction to return and/or re-export the goods imported by them from Hong Kong which are unclaimed by the buyers. The petitioners are owners of the said goods. The goods were supplied on consignment basis but the buyers in India have refused to accept the goods and clear the same. The consignment arrived in .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ey have not even imported the goods. In the case of Union of India v. Sampat Raj Dugar reported in 1992 (58) E.L.T. 163 the Supreme Court has held that if the bill of entry is not filed by the importer and the importer has abandoned the goods title in the goods will not pass to the importer and the exporter will be entitled to re-export or return of the goods. 4. Mr. Deodhar, learned Counsel appearing for the respondents has not disputed that the subject goods have not been cleared by the 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

orter in similar fashion. Upon detailed examination carried out on the strength of declaration contained in the respective bills of lading it was found that the goods were not in conformity with the declared description and quantity as contained and declared in the respective bills of lading. It is stated that notices have been issued to the importers and earlier 5 consignments were seized for misdeclaration and these consignments are liable to confiscation under Sections 111(m) and 111(d) of th .....

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 importers nor import documents produced and in fact they have abandoned the goods. It is not possible to link the present consignment with the earlier consignments which were allegedly under-valued. It is seen from record that the importers have not claimed any right title and interest in respect of the said goods nor have presented the bill of entry. In the circumstances we do not see any justification on the part of the respondents in detaining the goods which are abandoned by the consignee .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ng held for the alleged under-valuation against M/s. Rahul Associates. However, it seems that the second consignment which was sent to M/s. Rahul Associates is detained only on the assumption that it would have been under-valued. Significantly, it cannot be overlooked that M/s. Rahul Associates had not filed any Bill of Entry or import document, and in fact they expressed their intention to abandon the goods due to their bad financial condition. Hence, the second consignment which is in dispute, .....

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