TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ntry (BoE) were initially filed in 2005; for its own convenience, the Customs authorities asked them to split the same into 14 bills which Atlas did in 2006. Held that:- Although, the BoE which signifies the importation of goods and the official record thereof undoubtedly occurred in 2005, the occasion for the DRI to investigate the genuineness of the transaction arose when the appellant sought ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... urav Mitra, Mr. Lokesh Chopra and Mr. Adit Singh, Advs. Respondent Through: Mr. Sanjeev Narula, Sr. Standing Counsel with Mr. Sunil Dalal, Mr. Abhishek Ghai and Mr. Shravan Kumar Shukla, Advs. O R D E R The question of law urged on behalf of the appellant, i.e. the assessee/importer is that the imposition of penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 [hereafter the Act ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ll of entry (which was in 2007), the assessee Atlas sought to re-export the goods this time claiming that the consignee was its sister concern, i.e. M/s. Atlas Opportunities Ltd. (a British Virgin Islands incorporated company), which is said to have been carrying on its commercial activities in Slovakia. The Let Export Orders (LET) were issued on different dates in 2007. At that stage, the Direc ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t urges that the cause or occasion, so to say, for imposing penalty in this case occurred prior to the insertion of Section 114AA and to that extent the concurrent imposition of penalty was unlawful. It was emphasized in this regard that the Bills of Entry (BoE) were initially filed in 2005; for its own convenience, the Customs authorities asked them to split the same into 14 bills which Atlas did ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ors beyond its control, such as dispute with BSNL which rather strangely and lamely it omitted to pursue and let go of the claim of reimbursement of ₹ 24 crores. In other words, the reexport application made sometime in 2007 and the order, which was issued upon it, in the opinion of this court, constituted attempts that were successful on the appellant s part to claim a fraudulent or otherwi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
