9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Allegation of deliberate mis-declaration in import documents by the Customs House Agent (CHA). 2. Suspension order issued against the appellants in relation to the mis-declaration. 3. Contention of the appellants regarding the suspension order. 4. Legal arguments presented by both parties. 5. Analysis of relevant case laws and judgments. 6. Decision and reasoning provided by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Bangalore. The judgment involves an appeal arising from a suspension order issued against the appellants due to an alleged deliberate mis-declaration in the import documents by the Customs House Agent (CHA). The goods were described differently in the commercial invoice and by the CHA, leading to a discrepancy in the assessment of duty. The appellants argued that the declaration was made at the instance of a PSU, providing technical evidence to support their claim that the item was correctly declared. They contended that the suspension was not immediate, as required, and that they had not engaged in any misconduct. The appellants relied on various judgments to support their case and requested the suspension order to be set aside. The Appellate Tribunal considered the arguments presented by both parties and analyzed the relevant case laws and judgments cited. It was noted that the suspension order should have been immediate, as per regulations, and that delays in such orders have been set aside in previous cases. The Tribunal found that the appellants had technical evidence to support their declaration and were following instructions from the PSU. The matter was subjudice regarding the item's classification as a Cellular Telephone. Due to the doubt surrounding the imported item and the delay in the suspension order, the Tribunal set aside the suspension order, allowing the appellants to operate their license immediately. The decision did not prevent the Commissioner from taking further action under the regulations.
|
