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

1999 (12) TMI 58

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ed adjudication, we fail to see why a subsequent purchaser be saddled with the liability of undervaluation, more so in the background of the fact that the appellant had no role to play either in the import or earlier adjudication proceedings. That apart, it is rather surprising that the fresh proceeding under Section 111(m) is not initiated against the original importer in spite of the provisions of Section 28 of the Act. Counsel for the respondent is unable to convince us why no notice under Section 124 is issued against the original importer who was permitted by the Department to redeem the goods under Section 125 of the Act and sell the same in the open market. In this background, we are of the opinion that the action of the Departme .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... de purchaser in the ordinary course of its business, it made enquiries with M/s. Integrated Exports as to the legality of the import of said hop pellets. They were informed by the said Integrated Exports as per their letter dated 11-2-1992 that the consignments from which the appellant was supplied the hop pellets were the subject matter of certain proceedings initiated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short 'the Act') and after the said adjudication made by the Department at the time of import, the goods in question were redeemed by them on payment of redemption fine. Hence, after the said redemption the importation had become licit and there could be no problem with the purchase of hop pellets made by the appellant. Howe .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the Act against the importer for recovery of duty either not levied or short-levied. The contention of the appellant was rejected by the Collector who vide his order dated 25-11-1992 released the goods by imposing a redemption fine totalling Rs. 3.25 lacs which was appropriated from the securities furnished by the appellant during the course of the proceedings. 2. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Collector, the appellant preferred appeals before the Customs, Excise Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, Madras (for short 'the Tribunal') wherein the appellant raised the following contentions : (1) The goods had already been confiscated under Section 111(d) and the same could not be confiscated second time over under Section 111(m) .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... nt sections for the purpose of our consideration are Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Act which read thus : "111. Confiscation of improperly imported goods, etc. - The following goods brought from a place outside India shall be liable to confiscation - x x x x x (d) any goods which are imported or attempted to be imported or are brought within the Indian customs waters for the purpose of being imported, contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under this Act or any other law for the time being in force; (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;" .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... oods on payment of redemption fine. Having released the goods thus into the market and permitting the sale of the same, in our opinion it is not open to the Collector to initiate another proceedings under another clause of Section 111 to recover the so-called differences in valuation of the imported goods from the ultimate bona fide purchaser for value. If the Collector failed to make a proper enquiry as to the market value of the goods and released the same after a half-hearted adjudication, we fail to see why a subsequent purchaser be saddled with the liability of undervaluation, more so in the background of the fact that the appellant had no role to play either in the import or earlier adjudication proceedings. That apart, it is rather s .....

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