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 →

Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) , Mumbai Versus M/s R.K. International And Others

2017 (8) TMI 348 - SUPREME COURT

Confiscation - penalty - misdeclaration of imported goods - It was further alleged in the SCN that the importers mentioned in the Bill of Entry were mere name-lenders and not the real persons who had made the imports - Held that: - there is lack of conclusive proof with regard to actual identification of ball bearings - the Revenue had failed to prove the presence of ball bearings in the two consignments covered by the aforesaid two Bill of Entries. - The entire findings of the learned Tribu .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

in the appeals which would require to be authoritatively answered by this Court. We, therefore, do not find the order of the learned Tribunal to be, in anyway, open to correction. - Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. - Civil Appeal No. (S).10347-10392 of 2011 - Dated:- 2-8-2017 - Justice Ranjan Gogoi, Justice L. Nageswara Rao And Justice Navin Sinha For the Appellant : Mr. Ashok Panda, Sr. Adv. Ms. Nisha Bagchi, Adv. Ms. Sunita Rani Singh, Adv. Ms. Pooja Sharma, Adv. For Mr. B. Kris .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

gnment imported into the country under Bill of Entry No.F-4316 there was a mis-declaration of the imported goods by the importer - M/s. Ram Metal Industries. There were three addendas to the aforesaid show cause notice, dated 23.04.1998, 15.05.1998 and 25.08.1998. In the aforesaid show cause notice similar allegations were levelled with regard to import by two other entities i.e M/s. Natraj Metals and M/s. R.K. International under Bill of Entry Nos. F-4120 and 3058 dated 21.07.1993 and 04.06.199 .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

3. The adjudicating authority, namely, Commissioner of Customs, on consideration of the replies to the show cause sent by the noticees and after hearing the parties, found that the show cause notice in respect of Bill of Entry Nos. F-4120 and 3058 to be unsustainable. Insofar as the Bill of Entry No.4316 is concerned, the adjudicating authority held one-Solly Perumal, Customs House Agent, to be responsible and made him liable for payment of penalty of ₹ 25 lakhs. 4. In appeal, the Customs .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

however, reduced the penalty imposed on Solly Perumal from 25 lacs to 5 lacs. Aggrieved, the Revenue has filed this appeal upon grant of special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution. 5. At the very outset, we do not see why instead of filing an appeal before the High Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 the Revenue has chosen to file a special leave application seeking leave to challenge the order of the learned Tribunal. The very fact that the Revenue has sought special leave .....

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