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 - 2001 (5) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2001 (5) TMI 564 - AT - Customs

Issues: Confiscation of goods, requirement of Import Licence, undervaluation, redemption fine, personal penalty.

The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Kolkata involved the confiscation of Brick Games and Video Cassettes (Blank 1 Inch) by the authorities due to the alleged need for an Import Licence and on grounds of undervaluation. The appellants were given the option to redeem the goods by paying a redemption fine of Rs. 4,78,000.00 and a personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000.00. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was held that the goods were freely importable without the need for a licence. It was determined that the cassettes were suitable for use with specific VCR types and should be classified under a particular EXIM Code, making them freely importable. The Tribunal emphasized the interpretation of the term 'suitable' and the classification by the DGFT, concluding that no licence was required for the importation of the Video Cassettes in question due to undervaluation.

Regarding the undervaluation issue, the Tribunal examined the Order-in-Original passed by the original adjudicating authority, which had marginally enhanced the price of the cassettes based on a previous import by the same appellants. The appellants clarified that the previous import was of a lesser quantity, justifying the declared value for the current import. The Tribunal agreed with the appellants, noting that the marginal enhancement was due to the larger quantity of goods in the current import, and thus, there was no undervaluation on the part of the appellants. Consequently, the impugned Order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs for the appellants.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates