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. Stonex India Pvt. Ltd. Versus C.C. New Delhi (Icd)

2016 (5) TMI 915 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

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 became liable to confiscation under Section 111( .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

eniency 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 (Advocate) For the Respondent : Mr. Ranjan K .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

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 polished slabs @ Euro 42.00 per SQM and on 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

f 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 which the appellant referred to as per the Cu .....

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