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 - 2008 (9) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2008 (9) TMI 639 - AT - Customs

Issues involved: Imposition of penalty under Sec. 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the current appellant for alleged misdeclaration and undervaluation of goods imported by M/s. Aryan Resources Pvt. Ltd.

Facts and Considerations:
The appeal was filed against an Order-in-original imposing a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the appellants under Sec. 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, in connection with the misdeclaration and undervaluation of an inkjet printing machine imported by M/s. Aryan Resources Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai. The main assessee settled the issue with the Settlement Commission, while the current appellant did not. The adjudicating authority concluded that penalty should be imposed on the current appellant.

Appellant's Submission:
The appellant's counsel argued that the order-in-original did not discuss the appellant's role in the misdeclaration and undervaluation of the goods. Specifically, it was pointed out that the appellant was unaware of these actions, as highlighted in Paras 8 and 9 of the order-in-original.

Adjudicating Authority's Findings:
The adjudicating authority's findings indicated that the appellant, Shri Glenn Almeida, was actively involved in the clearance of the goods and was aware of the misdeclaration and undervaluation. Despite the lack of evidence directly linking the appellant to these actions, the authority held him liable for penalty under Sec. 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.

Appellate Tribunal's Decision:
After reviewing the submissions and records, the Appellate Tribunal found that the adjudicating authority's conclusion of imposing a penalty on the appellant was erroneous. The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence implicating the appellant in the misdeclaration or undervaluation of the goods. As a result, the impugned order imposing a penalty on the appellant was set aside, and the appeal was allowed.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates