Feedback   New User   Subscription   Demo   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 →

M/s. Sardana Enterprises, M/s. Express India Council of India Versus CC, New Delhi

2018 (1) TMI 723 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

Illegal import - misdeclaration of goods - enhancement of value - as the goods were not properly declared for contents as well as value and accordingly, apart from proposing confiscation of the goods, enhancement of value, notice also proposed penalties on various noticees Held that: - It is a fact that the courier consignment did not contain the necessary statutory details on the pack. The details contained were vague and there was a clear attempt in mis-declaration of high value electronic ite .....

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 attempt of improper importation of goods through courier service. In any case, the impugned order did not bring out the exact violation committed by the custodian with reference to the present cargo, which will attract penalty under the provisions of Customs Act. The custodian did not file any documents containing improper particulars nor abetted any such improper importation or subsequent clearance - impugned order did not bring any act or omission on the part of the custodian in order to att .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

appellants Shri R.K. Manjhi, DR for the respondent ORDER Per: B. Ravichandran These two appeals are against common impugned order dated 28.03.2013 of Commissioner of Customs (Export), Airport, New Delhi. The impugned order dealt with role of various noticees with reference to import of Micro SD Chips. However, we have only two appeals before us and accordingly, the findings are restricted to these two appeals only. The first appellant, M/s. Sardana Enterprises, is a proprietory firm owned by Sh .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Customs House, Delhi intercepted a courier shipment at the carrier terminal and examined the said consignment, which arrived from Hong Kong on 23.04.2012. On examination of the said courier consignment, it was noticed that no proper documents accompanied the said consignment. The receiver‟s name was mentioned as Raja Traders , Mr. Tarun (Tel.No.9810087272)" and Xtra image . No address or other details regarding contents of the cargo were available. The goods were examined and the con .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cted documents were collected by the officers. On completion of the investigation, the following facts /inferences were arrived at by the Revenue:- (i) Goods concerned are covered under AWB no.160-2580-4315 dated 22.04.2012 sent by M/s.Taj Express Courier in the name of M/s.Cruze Couriers Pvt. Ltd. vide courier tag No.CX676126 through Cathay Pacific Flight No.CX 695. (ii) Scrutiny of the documents available with the consignment reveal that they do not reflect complete address of receiver and als .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ich shows that the goods were sent by M/s. Panash Goup and M/s. Shenzhen Imaging Co. These documents were submitted at the time of recording of his statement. (iv) As per Export Manifest, consignees are M/s. Sardana Enterprises, M/s. JMS Infotech, Mr. Tarun and Mr. Vikash Kumar. (v) Copy of HAWBs submitted along with Export Manifest shows the name of the consignee changed from M/s. Raja Traders to M/s. Sardana Enterprises and from M/s. Xtra Image to M/s. JMS Infotech by striking out the earlier .....

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.Cruze Courier provided the necessary assistance in attempt to smuggle Memory Card, by not following the proper procedure. (vii) The other two consignees, Mr. Tarun Kumar Nangia and Shri Vikash Kumar denied having made any such import from Hong Kong. 3. Alleging violation of various provisions of Customs Act, 1962, Courier Exports and Imports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998, Courier Imports and Exports (Electronic Declaration and Processing) Regulations, 2010 and Handling of Cargo in Customs Are .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

es on various noticees. As noted earlier, we are concerned only with two such noiticees in the present appeal. 4. With reference to first appellant (M/s.Sardana Enterprises), it was alleged that they did not produce documents relating to booking of consignments at Hong Kong as claimed by them. No invoice relating to goods was found along with th goods at the time of examination by the officers on 23.04.2012. The Airway bill had shown that the consignment was shipped to one M/s.Raja Traders with .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ds, which included 12500 2 GB Strontratium‟ brand memory cards are liable for confiscation. The goods were allowed to be redeemed on payment of a fine of ₹ 15 lakhs in terms of Section 125 of the Act. The value of the imported goods was re-determined at ₹ 57,69,008/- with a duty liability of ₹ 5,39,747/-. A penalty of ₹ 2 lakh under Section 112(a) with a further penalty of ₹ 5,39,747/- under Section 114 AA of the Act were imposed on Shri Gopal Sardana, Proprie .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

hey have already paid the redemption fine, penalty and duty, the goods should be released in good condition to them. The same has not been done by the Customs Authorities in spite of the repeated requests. It appears that the goods have been stolen from the warehouse and the appellant is put to financial loss. The Ld. Counsel also pleaded that the redemption fine and the penalty imposed on the appellant is excessive and not sustainable. 7. Ld. AR contested the appeal. He submitted that the role .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

cargo with a plea that the shipping courier in Hong Kong committed an error. Ld. AR submitted that this is an afterthought, to avoid penalty and the other consequences, the appellant have submitted invoice etc. later. Even the invoice submitted did not carry the full details regarding brand name etc. of the product. He supported the findings of the Original Authority with reference to this appellant. 8. We have heard both the sides and perused the appeal records. 9. It is a fact that the courier .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

with reference to booking of consignment at Hong Kong and also the reason for invoice dated 15.04.2012 not having full particulars like name etc. of the imported goods. We note that that the facts and circumstances of the case, as revealed by the investigation, have been examined by the Original Authority before arriving at a conclusion. In this regard, the Original Authority observed as below:- From the statement of Shri Gopal Sardana, Proprietor of M/s. Sardana Enterprises, it is clear that t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

er company. This statement establishes the complicity of the individuals in the matter. Shri Gopal Sardana also admitted that he got a phone call from Taj International informing that he had to go the Customs Office for clearance of these goods. The said chain of events therefore clearly exposes the unholy intentions of the Noticees. 10. Regarding valuation, we note that the invoice submitted by the appellant did not carry the brand name of the product and also the country of origin. The goods h .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

Authorities. 12. With reference to the plea made by the appellant regarding imposition of excessive redemption fine and penalties, we note that the value of the goods was redetermined and fixed at ₹ 57.69 lakhs. The duty involved is ₹ 5,39,747/-. The redemption fine of ₹ 15 lakh is excessive and not justifiable. As per the normal practice, the redemption fine so fixed for release of the confiscated goods, which should generally wipe out profit that could accrue to the importer .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

been render such goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. In the present case, as discussed above, there is clear justification for such penalty on the appellant. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the same. 14. We note a further penalty of ₹ 5,39,747/- (equal to the duty amount) was imposed on the appellant in terms of Section 114 (AA). Considering that already a penalty of ₹ 2 lakhs has been imposed on the appellant, we find that penalty und .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

0,000/- under Section 117 of the Act. We have heard the ld. Counsel for the appellant and ld. AR for the Revenue. The impugned order held against the appellant, who is authorized to handle cargo in the customs area, only on the ground that they have been allowed another person as a sub-contractor to do the activity of handling cargo. This was held to be in violation of Regulation 6 (1)(h) of 2009 Regulations. The said Regulation stipulates that the custodian shall not permit for import cargo to .....

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