Tax Management India. Com
                        Law and Practice: A Digital eBook ...

Short Notes

TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts Notifications Circulars Classification Forms Manuals SMS News Articles
Highlights
D. Forum
What's New

Share:      

        Home        
 

TMI Blog

Home List
← Previous Next →

2019 (5) TMI 723

ere allowed to be cleared by custodian without approval of the proper officer of custom - HELD THAT:- The goods from the custom area cannot be allowed to be removed without the permission in writing of the proper office. It is also a fact that at the time of removal of goods M/s Hindalco did not pay the applicable IGST which was effective from 01.07.2017 however the same was paid on 28.08.2017. Therefore, the appellant being a custodian has contravened the provisions of Regulation 6(f) and 6(q) of HCCAR, 2009 for this offence the penalty is provided under Regulation 12(8) of HCCAR 2009. The appellant though violated the Regulation but it was not intentional, particularly when the levy of IGST came into effect on the same day i.e. 01.07.2 .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

T on the imported goods (copper concentrate). Statement of Sh. Deepak Razdan and Sh. Anand Mohan were recorded on 24.07.2017. Again statement of both the persons were recorded on 08.08.2017. On 28.08.2017 IGST including interest amounting to ₹ 6,57,58,940/- was paid. A SCN dated 26.09.2017 was came to be issued alleging that the appellant have violated regulation 6(f) and (q) of the handling of cargo in Customs Area Regulation 2009. After issuing the inquiry report to the appellant and personal hearing, the impugned order dated 06.06.2018 was issued whereby a penalty of ₹ 50, 000/- was imposed on the appellant, therefore, the present appeal. 2. Sh. T. vishwanathan, Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that th .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

regulation 6(f) is not violated in the present case. He submits that all the provisions of chapter 6 of the Customs Act have been complied with in every case including the present imports under question. He submits that the following aspects may also be taken into consideration: a) The jetty is being in operation for over 15 years. b) The jetty is being used exclusively for import of goods or export of goods by Hindalco; c) Very rarely and in stay cases, the jetty has been used by M/s Sanjana Cryogenics, who is situated within the factory premises of Hindalco; d) The goods imported are not restricted goods; they are freely importable; e) The self-assessed duty (or provisionally assessed duty) is always paid in advance by Hindalco. Even in t .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

e custom duty can be ascertained only at the time of final assessment of bill of entry. At the time of provisional assessment, the advance authorization was adopted towards the value of imported goods. The imported goods reached into India after introduction of GST, thus, the provisional assessment is yet to be finalized in the terms of Section 15 of the Customs Act to apply correct rate of all customs duty on the date of import. Thus, in absence of final provisional assessment of bill of entry it can be contended that Hindalco Ltd. had not paid applicable customs duty. He also referred to the Board Circular dated 01.07.2017, according to which it was clarified that in case whether cargo arrival is after 01.07.2017 and an advance bill of en .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

indalco did not pay the applicable IGST which was effective from 01.07.2017 however the same was paid on 28.08.2017. Therefore, the appellant being a custodian has contravened the provisions of Regulation 6(f) and 6(q) of HCCAR, 2009 for this offence the penalty is provided under Regulation 12(8) of HCCAR 2009 reproduced below: (8) If any Customs Cargo Service provider contravenes any of the provisions of these regulation, or abets such contravention or who fails to comply with any provision of the regulation with which it was his duty to comply, then, he shall be liable to a penalty which may extend to fifty thousand rupees. From the above Regulation 12(8) it is seen that the penalty of 50,000/- is maximum one which was imposed by the adju .....

X X X X X X X

Full Text of the Document

X X X X X X X

 

 

← Previous Next →

 

 

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || Database || Members || Refer Us ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.
|| Blog || Site Map - Recent || Site Map ||