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

M/s Indian Acrylics Ltd. Versus CC, New Delhi (Air Cargo Export)

2016 (11) TMI 32 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Confiscation of consignment u/s 111 (m) of CA, 1962 - option to redeem on payment of redemption fine u/s 125 - imposition of penalties u/s 112 (a) - import of 60 pieces of heater - Held that: - The courier bill of entry filed by the importer was acco .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

it stands established that the goods have been mis-declared and, hence, is liable for confiscation under Section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962. Once the goods are found to be mis-declared the same will be liable for confiscation in Section 111 (m) .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ct. I also reduce the penalty imposed under Section 112 (a) to ₹ 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand). - Imposition of penalties u/s 114 (AA) - Held that: - false and incorrect material not found - penalty set aside. - Appeal disposed off .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

epresentative (DR) - for the Respondent. ORDER The appellant imported a consignment of 60 pieces of heater and filed the courier bill of entry No. 594723 dated 19/8/14 through M/s DHL Express. Alongwith the bill of entry they attached an invoice decl .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

/14 for U.S. $ 3,000 (FOB) alongwith bank remittance certificates. The goods were accordingly reassessed at the higher assessable value of ₹ 2,26,994/-. The Customs duty was paid accordingly and goods were cleared after adjudication. In the ori .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

imposed under Section 112 (a) alongwith a penalty of ₹ 10,000/- under Section 114 (AA). This order was challenged before Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the order-in-original in toto. Hence, the present appeal. 2. The impugned order dated 11 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ter has submitted the correct invoice alongwith the bank remittance certificate there is no justification for ordering confiscation of the goods and imposition of RF and penalties. 3. I have heard Shri Kumar Vikram, learned Advocate for the appellant .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

e of the import goods as U.S. $ 3,000 was submitted by the importer only after it was noticed by the Customs that the goods imported were under valued. Hence, it stands established that the goods have been mis-declared and, hence, is liable for confi .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Forum
what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| 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