Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. Intercoast Shipping Services Versus Commissioner of Customs (Export) , JNCH, Nhava Sheva

2016 (9) TMI 272 - CESTAT MUMBAI

Imposition of penalty - Section 114(iii) of Customs Act, 1962 CHA authorization drawback mis-decaration - Indian Woolens Floor Covering Carpet having drawback rate @ 13.30% of the FOB - Durries made of wool and jute having drawback rate @ 9.80% of the FOB Held that: - CHALR has put obligations on the CHA to follow certain procedure laid down in the regulation, which was purposely made to avoid any fraud in the customs clearances. Appellant CHA was not having any fraudulent intention an .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Appellants Shri. V.R. Reddy, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent ORDER This appeal is filed against impugned order passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) whereby Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the penalty of ₹ 1 lac imposed on the appellant under Section 114(iii) of Customs Act, 1962. 2. The fact of the case is that appellant CHA has handled the exports clearance of goods on behalf of M/s. M.I. Industries. On investigation by the customs it was revealed that the goods declared in the s .....

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 the aforesaid exporter did not obtain authorization. They handled this clearance work on behest of one unauthorized person Shri. Dilip Mishra. For this lapse on the part of the CHA, the show cause notice was issued proposing penalty under Section 114(iii) on Customs Act, 1962 for aiding and abetting fraudulent claim of drawback. In the adjudication order, the adjudicating authority imposed penalty of ₹ 1 lac which was challenged by the appellant before the Commissioner(Appeals). The Comm .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

back. He submits that appellant CHA cannot know what is the content of the packages. He generally acts only on the basis of documents, therefore if at all there is any mis-declaration, the appellant is nowhere connected to that. Therefore for mis-declaration on the part of the exporter, CHA cannot be held responsible. He placed reliance on the following judgments: (a) Trinity Forwarders Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai[2005(192) ELT 407(Tri. Chennai)] (b) Palak Laser Video Club Vs. Commissio .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version