9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (7) TMI 1432 - HC - CustomsMis-declaration of imported goods - various types of yarn and blankets - Evasion of Customs Duty by mis-declaring value and description of goods - invocation of sub-section 11 to Section 28 of the Act - parallel proceedings - HELD THAT - At the time of hearing, it is stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the impugned show cause notice (P-1) already stands adjudicated vide order dated 11.3.2019 (R-1/1) passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar and against said order, petitioner has already availed the remedy of appeal under the provisions of Customs Act in June 2019 - Learned counsel for the petitioner does not dispute the fact that statutory appeal before CESTAT, Chandigarh already stands filed and therefore, two parallel proceedings cannot continue. Petition disposed off by relegating the petitioners to pursue the remedy of appeal already filed before the CESTAT, Chandigarh.
Issues: Alleged evasion of customs duty through misdeclaration and undervaluation of imported yarn; Validity of show cause notice; Legality of Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011; Constitutionality of Section 28(11) of the Customs Act.
In this case, the petitioner-firm, involved in importing yarn, faced allegations of customs duty evasion by misdeclaring the value and description of yarn and incomplete declaration. The Directorate of Revenue Intelligence conducted searches based on intelligence received, revealing similar modus operandi in subsequent sales in India. A Show Cause Notice was issued, accusing the petitioner of evading customs duty and demanding penalties. The petition sought to quash the notice, challenge the Customs (Amendment and Validation) Act, 2011, and declare Section 28(11) of the Customs Act unconstitutional. The respondents filed a written statement, and during the hearing, it was revealed that the impugned notice had been adjudicated, and the petitioner had already appealed the decision. The court acknowledged the appeal filed before CESTAT, Chandigarh, and directed the petitioners to pursue the remedy of appeal already initiated, thereby indicating that parallel proceedings could not continue simultaneously. The judgment focused on the procedural aspects of the case, emphasizing the importance of following the statutory appeal process and refraining from duplicative legal actions.
|
