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

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2016 (11) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2016 (11) TMI 1200 - AT - Customs


Issues:
1. Rejection of transaction value of imported goods.
2. Imposition of redemption fine and penalties under Customs Act, 1962.
3. Misdeclaration of import value.
4. Confiscation of goods and penalties imposed on the importer and an individual.

Analysis:
1. The appellant contested the rejection of the transaction value of imported "Lux" brand soaps, leading to the imposition of a redemption fine and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that there was no valid basis for enhancing the declared value, making the confiscation and penalties unwarranted under Section 125 of the Act. The appellant further contended that the penalties imposed were unjustified under Sections 114A and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The Revenue, on the other hand, asserted that there was a deliberate misdeclaration of the import value, supported by the appellant's past import data. The department argued that the misdeclaration warranted no leniency due to the deliberate evasion. The adjudicating authority justified the disturbance of the declared value by applying Rule 4(1) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1998, and found the department's valuation rational based on detailed scrutiny of the sale price, leading to the confiscation of goods and levy of customs duty on the determined value.

3. The tribunal examined the authority's reasoning for imposing a redemption fine and found the lack of a clear basis for the fine amount. The tribunal reduced the redemption fine to 20% of the determined value, guided by a Supreme Court judgment, and upheld the penalty imposed under Section 114A on the importer. The tribunal partially allowed the appeal of the importer, M/s. Safi & Co., in this regard.

4. Regarding the penalty imposed on an individual, Shri Mohammed Sahabudeen, under Section 112(a), the tribunal upheld the penalty amount of ?1,00,000. The tribunal noted that the evidence demonstrated his involvement in the misdeclaration of import value, as he was the power of attorney holder instrumental in causing duty evasion. Despite considering his role, the tribunal found no grounds to reduce the penalty, leading to the dismissal of his appeal.

In conclusion, the tribunal disposed of both appeals, confirming the penalty on the importer under Section 114A while dismissing the appeal of the individual regarding the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates