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 Zim Integrated Services India Pvt Ltd Versus The Commissioner of Customs, ICD, TKD, New Delhi

2016 (3) TMI 604 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Acts of omission and commission - Held that:- appellant issued delivery order to a company non- existent without verification and not mentioned in the IGM filed but also did not seek permission from Customs Department for amending IGM's containing names of other consignees. Also, it issued NOC dated 22/2/2007 to non-consignee company on the basis of an undated letter written to it by non-consignee company signed by one Amit whose .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

esident And R. K. Singh, Member (T) For the Appellant : Shri Manoj Khanna, Adv For the Respondent : Shri Ranjan Khanna, DR ORDER Per R K Singh The appeal is filed against order-in-original dated 30/12/2008 in terms of which inter alia penalty of ₹ 5 lakhs was imposed on the appellant under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. In this case, the goods imported in two containers were declared in the gateway IGMs and the corresponding local IGMs as old original completely pre-mutilated woolen .....

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 51 and 52 of appeal papers) for amendment of the IGMs addressed to the Dy. Commissioner (Customs) and gave it to M/s. Rainbow products without verifying the genuineness of M/s. Rainbow Products inasmuch as the said firm at the given address was non-existent. Indeed another firm with the same name existed at a different address and denied any concern with the import of impugned goods. Thus, the primary adjudicating authority held the appellant liable to penalty under Section 112 of CA61 and imp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ents also forwarded a non-negotiable copy of the amended Bill of Lading. (iii) On the request of Rainbow products, it issued no objection certificates dated 22/2/2007 for amendment of IGMs and issued delivery orders in favour of Rainbow products, (iv) Rainbow Products paid all the relevant charges through cheques, (v) The containers reached the ports in sealed condition and it had no means of verifying the contents thereof. The appellant cited the judgments Bombay High Court in the case of Shaw .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ow products which was not the original consignee and it did so without informing Customs to amend the IGM (ii) Being a shipping agent, it was well aware of the risks involved in changing the names of consignee and the important requirement of bringing it to the notice of Customs with a request to amend the IGM and thus, the penalty was rightly imposed. 4. We have considered the contentions of both sides. 5. It is an admitted fact that the goods found in the containers were mis-declared and were .....

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