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 →

S.M. Taufeek Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

2016 (11) TMI 177 - CESTAT CHENNAI

Penalty - Evasion of duty - Held that: - when the breach of law is patent from record, penalty of ₹ 4,50,000/- (Rupees four lakh fifty thousand only) imposed on the appellant under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 appears to be reasonable and there shall be no interference by the Tribunal - Section 114AA is applicable when documents are falsified with conscious knowledge to cause evasion. In this case, appellant s questionable modus operandi and oblique motive demonstrated its invol .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

llant says that this appellant although was in the chain of import linking the importer and the CHA, he has no role to cause evasion of duty. Therefore, levy of penalty of ₹ 4,50,000/- each under section 112(a) and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 is unwarranted and unjustified. 2. Revenue on the other hand says that when there were forged documents and subterfuge to Revenue done through e-mail correspondences that was recovered in the course of investigation, that establishes the ro .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

connivance with them. (b) The invoice, packing list and Bill of Lading as well as country of origin certificate showed that there were mis-declaration of the description of the goods. (c) The goods appearing in the country of origin certificate was polyester knitted fabric whereas in the invoice and packing list the goods described were polyester stock lot knitted fabric . (d) The value declared was on the basis of the mis-declaration of the description of the goods. That was obviously underval .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

y to the extent of ₹ 6 to 7 lakhs per container. (h) The appellant was in the business of freight forwarding and has conscious knowledge about the nature of the goods, as well as impact thereof on the import duty. 5. The evidence as above came to record did not detach the appellant from his hand in glove in commitment of offence in absence of any evidence to the contrary led by appellant. Accordingly, commitment of breach of law by the appellant under section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 ha .....

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