Contact us   Feedback   Annual Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

2016 (5) TMI 915 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

2016 (5) TMI 915 - CESTAT NEW DELHI - TMI - Restriction on import - Import of Random Polished Marble Slabs of CIF value less than US Dollar 60 per SQM - freely not importable as per Notification No. 65(RE-2010)/2009-14 dated 04.08.2011 - Held that:- the good were of “CIF” value less than US $ 60 per SQM even on the date of shipment and remained in violation of Exim Policy on the date of their imports as the CIF value was admittedly less than US $ 60 per SQM. Consequently, the impugned goods beca .....

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 the interest of justice, considerable leniency is called for in adjudging the redemption fine and penalty. Impugned order is upheld except that the redemption fine and penalty are reduced to ₹ 1,50,000/- and ₹ 50,000/- respectively - Decided partly in favour of appellant - Customs Appeal No. C/3414/2012-Cu[DB] - Final Order No. 51763 /2016 - Dated:- 4-5-2016 - MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) AND MR. R. K. SINGH, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) For the Petitioner : Mr. Sadashiv Dadheechi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

r assessable value of ₹ 25,27,186.90. As the CIF value of the impugned goods worked out to less than US Dollars 60 per SQM, and as per the Notification No. 65(RE-2010)/2009-14 dated 04.08.2011 import of marble of CIF value less than US Dollar 60 per SQM was not permitted freely, it resulted in confiscation of the goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty as mentioned above. 3. The appellant has contended that it obtained a quotation dated 10.09.2011 from the supplier for random p .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

) dated 26.08.2011. It is only at the time of actual arrival of goods that as per the exchange rate applicable on the date of arrival as notified vide Notification No. 82/2011-Cu(N.T.) dated 28.11.2011 that the value of the goods became the little less than US Dollar 60 per SQM and worked out to about US $58 per SQM and in these circumstances, the confiscation should not have been ordered and penalty also should not have been imposed. 3. Ld. DR, on the other hand, stated that the exchange rate w .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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