Subscription   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
CGST - Acts + GST Rates GST Ntf. GST Forms GST - Manual GST - FAQ State GST Acts SGST Ntf. I. Tax Manual
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

Shri Naveen Mehta Versus Commissioner of Customs (Port) Kolkata

Imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that: - I find that the Section 114AA is applicable to an importer who uses incorrect or false materials in the transaction of the business, whereas Section 112(a) deals with abatement - In the present case, it is already an admitted fact that the appellant is an agent on commission basis between the foreign supplier and the Indian importer, and he himself is not an importer per se. Therefore, I find that the penalty unde .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ual intention of the importer. But the offence committed by the appellant is punishable under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 and since ignorance of law and/or being unaware of the intention of the importer is not a ground of excuse, I impose a penalty of ₹ 50,000/- under Section 112(a) and direct the Adjudicating Authority to appropriate the amount, paid by the appellant, towards the same. - Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant. - Appeal No. C/75463/2014 - Ord .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

or importing of different glass materials from the country of China. The appellant had contacted the foreign exporters at China and introduced them with the proprietor of M/s. Bharti Glass Company. The negotiation of purchase and import of glass materials by M/s. Bharti Glass Company were made by him as per instruction of Shri Banwarilal Ganeriwala, proprietor of M/s. Bharti Glass Company. Ld.Counsel further submits that in all the occasions, the appellant used to make correspondences with the f .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rs had seized several documents from the appellant s office premises. The Central Processing Unit of his office computer was also seized under the said search list. Subsequently, investigation was caused with M/s. Bharti Glass Company also and statement was recorded from him in relation to the said documents pertaining to the import of M/s. Bharti Glass Company. 3. During the recording of the appellant s statement, he was confronted with the seized documents including print out copies of e-mail .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

wer value, which he had to arrange for the sake of business and he had no knowledge regarding the use of such proforma invoices. 4. Ld. Counsel further submits that the Lower Appellate Authority had observed that the appellant had no direct role in customs clearance and did not sign any customs paper. Accordingly, the Lower Appellate Authority had reduced the quantum of the penalties imposed. Ld. Adjudicating Authority held that ignorance of law cannot be an excuse. It is submitted that the appe .....

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 to confiscation under Section 111 or to abate such doing or omission. The act of arranging separate invoices in no way renders goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. The question of confiscation of the said goods under Section 111 ibid cannot arise due to the undervaluation or mis-declaration with respect to value made by the importer at the time of importation of the goods. Ld. Counsel further submits that under Section 114AA penalty is imposable upon the ap .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

nt had neither made, signed, used or causes to do any such declaration/statement or documents which is false or incorrect in any material particular. It is the importer and/or his authorized person, who had made signed and used or causes to do so with respect to the import of the said goods. Hence, the provisions of Section 114AA is not applicable upon the appellant. Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that there is no merit in the impugned order and accordingly the same is liable to be set .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ransactions over and above the declared invoice value, thereby also abetting the doings and omissions on the part of the importer in rendering the subject goods liable to confiscation and accordingly, rendered himself liable for penalty under Section 112(a) and under Section 114 AA of Act. 6. Heard both sides and perused the case records. 7. I find that the lower authority in the impugned order had imposed a combined penalty under Section 112(a) and Section 114(AA) of the Customs Act, 1962. Sect .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 



|| 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