Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (1) TMI 1725

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s to avoid the anti-dumping duty. There are no discrepancy in directing confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty - However, in the interest of justice, keeping in view the circumstances of the case, the quantum of fine and penalty appears to be too harsh and disproportionate, the same is thus reduced. Appeal allowed in part. - C/1048/2009 - Final Order No. A/85306/2019-WZB - Dated:- 30-1-2019 - Dr. D.M. Misra, Member (J) Shri V.M. Doiphode, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri Trupti Chavan, Assistant Commissioner (AR), for the Respondent. ORDER This is an appeal filed against Order-in-Original No. 18/2009, dated 22-7-2009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), JNCH, Nhava Sheva. 2 .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ion on their part inasmuch as the overseas supplier has wrongly dispatched the goods. Later, on being pointed out by the appellant, the overseas supplier had agreed to re-export of the goods. It is his contention that there was no intention to evade payment of anti-dumping duty by mis-declaring the description and quantity of the goods. 4. Per contra, Learned AR for the Revenue submits that there is no dispute to the fact that the imported goods were misdeclared and the same was noticed by the Department only after 100% examination of the consignment. Later, even though the appellant produced documents indicating mistake on the part of the overseas supplier, however, the fact remains that there was mis-declaration. Accordingly, confisc .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ake of the overseas supplier. Analyzing the evidence on record and submissions advanced, I am of the view that there was a misdescription of the goods by the appellant, but it is not coming forth from the record that intentionally they have misdeclared the goods to avoid the anti-dumping duty. Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 reads as follows :- SECTION 111. Confiscation of improperly imported goods, etc. - The following goods brought from a place outside India shall be liable to confiscation :- (m) any goods which do not correspond in respect of value or in any other particular with the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under Section 77 in respect thereof, or in the case of good .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates