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 - 2014 (10) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2014 (10) TMI 230 - AT - Customs


Issues:
1. Penalty imposed on appellants for illegal dealing with Chinese silk
2. Ownership and origin of the seized goods
3. Connection between the appellants and the illegal import of Chinese silk

Analysis:
1. The appellants challenged the penalty imposed on them for dealing with Chinese silk illegally imported into India. The investigation revealed that a Maruti van was intercepted carrying Chinese silk fabric, and the appellants were connected to the goods. Shri Sanjay Maheshwari claimed ownership of the goods, which were seized for lack of evidence of lawful import. Further investigation at his premises uncovered more Chinese silk, indicating his involvement in the trade.

2. Shri Sanjay Maheshwari admitted to dealing with Chinese silk, stating that he started his own business trading in such fabric. He mentioned receiving a consignment from Shri M.P. Goenka, which was to be delivered through a transporter. The investigation established a link between the seized goods and the illegal import from Nepal, with the involvement of Shri M.P. Goenka and Shri Anil Jatia.

3. The Revenue argued that the goods seized originated from Nepal and were imported illicitly. Shri M.P. Goenka was identified as the importer through Shri Anil Jatia, with Shri Sanjay Maheshwari acting as the buyer. The live link between the parties and the movement of goods from Nepal to India was substantiated, leading to the upheld penalty on both appellants.

In conclusion, the Tribunal found substantial evidence linking the appellants to the illegal import of Chinese silk, dismissing their appeals due to the established connections and ownership of the seized goods. The retraction of confessional statements and lack of evidence disputing the origin of the goods rendered the appellants' arguments ineffective, resulting in the confirmation of the penalty.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates