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 →

The Additional Commissioner of Customs Versus Shri Ashok Kumar

2016 (5) TMI 79 - DELHI HIGH COURT

Import of baggage - Non declaration of 16 Sony Digital HD Video Camera Recorders made in Japan along with accessories and two Black Magic Cinema Cameras - Confiscation of goods - CCESC reduced the fine and penalty on duty amount already paid - Held that:- the present case is not covered by any of the provisos to Section 127B (1) of the Act. In other words, it does not fall under any of the excluded categories of cases. The Court sees no reason why in the circumstances of the present case the Res .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

7B. If that was the legislative intent, then there ought to have been a specific provision to that effect. The Court sees no reason to interfere with the impugned final order. - Petition disposed of - W. P. (C) 8914/2014 & CM No. 20412/2014 - Dated:- 28-4-2016 - S. Muralidhar And Vibhu Bakhru, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr Satish Kumar, Senior Standing counsel For the Respondent : Mr Abdhesh Chaudhary and Mr Sanjit Kumar, Advocates ORDER 1. The challenge by the Customs Department in this petition .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

noted that he had not written any value on the Customs portion of disembarkation slip. On screening his baggage on the X-Ray machine some suspicious dark images were noticed. On opening the baggage it was found that he was, inter alia, carrying 16 Sony Digital HD Video Camera Recorders made in Japan along with accessories and two Black Magic Cinema Cameras. The Respondent failed to produce the purchase bills. He revealed the price of Video Camera Recorder as ₹ 1,00,000/- per piece but was .....

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 goods were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 ('Act'). A voluntary statement was tendered by the Respondent under Section 108 of the Act on 24th April, 2013 admitting to bringing the above dutiable goods from Singapore. He was arrested under Section 104 of the Act and subsequently released on bail. A provisional release order was passed on 30th September, 2013 for release of the goods in his favour subject to the Respondent paying the customs duty of ₹ 10,63,432 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

Notice (SCN) was issued to the Respondent by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, IGI Airport, Terminal-3, New Delhi on 18th October, 2013, inter alia, proposing confiscation of the imported goods, levy of Customs Duty in the sum of ₹ 10,63,432/- and penalty under Section 112/114AA of the Act. 6. On that stage, the Respondent filed an application on 7th November, 2013 before the CCESC under Section 127(5) of the Act praying that the duty liability of the subject goods be determined at .....

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 the penalty and fine to ₹ 25,000 each, and, subject to the payment of the aforementioned amounts, ordering the release of the bond, discharge of the bank guarantee and granting immunity to the Respondent from prosecution. 8. The main grievance voiced by the Customs Department through its counsel Mr Satish Kumar is that the CCESC ought not to have entertained the application at all since the essential condition stipulated in Section 127B of the Act was not fulfilled. It is urged, on 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

d in Section 127B(1) of the Act. 9. In the counter affidavit filed in response to the present petition, reliance is placed by the Respondent on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in Commissioner of Customs v. Ashok Kumar Jain 2013 (292) ELT 32 (Delhi) where in similar circumstances this Court declined to interfere with the order of the CCESC. Reference is also made to a judgment dated 6th January, 2015 in W.P.(C) No.8991/2014 (The Additional Commissioner of Customs v. Shri Viney Ja .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

his stage that the decision in Additional Commissioner of Customs v. Shri Ram Niwas Verma (supra) was a case where imported goods were covered under the third Proviso to Section 127B(1) and, therefore, the said decision is distinguishable on facts. The learned Single Judge of the Karnataka High Court has in Commissioner of Customs v. A. Mahesh Raj (supra), proceeded on the basis that if it was a case of mis-declaration and not a case of misclassification, Section 127B itself is not applicable. 1 .....

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