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 - 1994 (9) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

1994 (9) TMI 196 - AT - Customs

Issues:
- Imposition of personal penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962
- Requirement of proper mutilation for clearance of imported goods
- Discrepancy in the length and width of imported goods
- Applicability of penalty and quantum of penalty
- Request for issuance of detention certificate

Analysis:

The appeal was filed against an order imposing a personal penalty of Rs. 11,000 on the appellant for importing woollen rags that were not completely pre-mutilated as required by Customs regulations. The goods were found to be of varying lengths and widths, not meeting the standards set by Public Notices. The appellants, regular importers, argued that there was no misdeclaration and that the delay in resolving the issue caused them financial losses. The adjudicating authority ordered the release of goods after further mutilation but upheld the penalty.

The Tribunal considered whether the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act was justified and if the quantum of penalty was disproportionate. It was noted that the imported goods did not meet the standard of pre-mutilation required by Indian Customs, specifically in terms of length and width. The Tribunal reduced the penalty from Rs. 11,000 to Rs. 5,000, considering the circumstances of the case.

Regarding the request for issuance of a detention certificate, the Tribunal clarified that it did not have jurisdiction to direct the issuance of such a certificate. The Customs Act empowers the Tribunal to hear appeals against decisions of the adjudicating authority, not to intervene in executive functions like the issuance of detention certificates. The Tribunal emphasized that its jurisdiction was limited to adjudication matters and did not extend to executive functions.

In conclusion, the Tribunal confirmed the order with the modification of reducing the personal penalty to Rs. 5,000. The request for a detention certificate was dismissed, with the Tribunal stating that the remedy for such a request lies elsewhere. The appeal was disposed of, with any consequential relief to be provided accordingly.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates