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. Jindal Steel and Power Limited Versus The Principal Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam

2016 (9) TMI 672 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT

Release of detained consignments - Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 - option to pay redemption fine along with duty and interest - Sections 28 and 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Coke Breeze - benefit of exemption notification No.12/2012, dated 17.03.2012 - exemption from payment of Basic Customs Duty - Metallurgical Coke - clearance of 69848.48 metric tons of goods by availing benefit of exemption notification - denial of exemption for clearance of balance 14801.52 metric tons of consignment .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

other, they overlap. This is the reason why the Supreme Court held in Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Vs. Jagdish Cancer & Research Centre [2001 (8) TMI 113 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)] that the order for payment of duty under Section 125(2) would be an integral part of the proceedings relating to confiscation and consequential orders thereon. - All the goods, including those already cleared, were liable for confiscation under Section 111(m), and that since a major portion of the goo .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

xercise confined only to the goods now detained. - The entire order in original is on appeal before the CESTAT. What the petitioner is now seeking in this writ petition is to order the release of the goods, by accepting a portion of the order, without prejudice to their rights in the appeal. If the petitioner had raised such a plea before the Tribunal, the Tribunal may probably take a holistic view of the entire matter. For the purpose of seeking an interim relief, an interpretation of the n .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ition seeking a Mandamus to direct the 1st respondent to release the goods upon payment of redemption fine of ₹ 2,50,00,000/-, together with proportionate duty amount of ₹ 1,74,36,865/- along with interest of ₹ 61,13,890/-. 2. Heard Mr. Lakshmi Kumaran, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. Swaroop Oorilla, learned standing counsel for the respondents. 3. The petitioner imported two consignments of Coke Breeze, under two Bills of Entry dated 21.12.2013 and 30.01.2014 resp .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

2 metric tons could be cleared, the Department of Customs woke up and claimed that Coke Breeze is not entitled to exemption under the notification No.12/2012, as it was not Metallurgical Coke. Therefore, an order of detention of the goods was passed on 02.12.2014 under Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 (for brevity the Act), which was followed by a show-cause- notice bearing No.16/2014, dated 30.12.2014, under which the 1st respondent demanded differential duty amounting to ₹ 10,22,68,1 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ired to be extracted and, hence, it is extracted as follows: I deny the BCD exemption under Sl.No.125 of CN 12/2012 Cus. Dated 17.3.2012 in the Bills of Entry No.4147311 dt.21.12.2013 and 4500504 dt.30.01.2014 as the exemption is available only for Metallurgical Coke and not for the imported Coke Breeze. I confirm and demand the differential duty amounting to ₹ 10,22,68,148/- (Rupees ten crores twenty two lakhs sixty eight thousand one hundred and forty eight only) against the two Bills of .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

does not arise and hence I refrain from imposing any redemption fine. I confiscate the imported Chinese Coke Breeze and detained under Section 110 of Customs Act, 1962 valued at ₹ 15,85,89,590.13 under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, I give an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 2,50,00,000/- (Rupees two crores and fifty lakhs) under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. I impose a penalty of ₹ 1,00,00,000/- (Rupees one crore only) on .....

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 a sum of ₹ 61,13,890/- towards interest. In response to the said letter, the 1st respondent informed the petitioner that the goods now lying in the Port, cannot be released, unless the entire differential duty is paid along with the redemption fine and interest. Therefore, the petitioner has come up with the present writ petition. 9. The only question that arises for consideration in this writ petition is as to whether for the release of 14801.52 metric tons of material lying in Port, 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

liable to pay the duty and charges payable in respect of such goods, in addition to fine. The expression such goods would naturally correlate only to the goods that are detained at the Port and cannot relate to the goods, which had already been released. 11. To buttress the above submission, the learned counsel for the petitioner also relies upon Section 28, which provides for recovery of duties not levied or short levied or erroneously refunded. Since the proceedings in question are under Secti .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

(S.C.) that the order for payment of duty under Section 125(2) would be an integral part of the proceedings relating to confiscation and consequential orders thereon. 13. But, unfortunately for the petitioner, the tenor of the order in original passed by the 1st respondent is to the effect that the clearance of a major portion of the imported goods, as though they were exempted goods, was erroneous, and that, therefore, the goods in entirety should be deemed to have been confiscated. In other wo .....

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