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

TMI Blog

Home

2004 (8) TMI 243

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... y. This forgery, which is not in dispute, rendered the clearance of the goods illegal inasmuch as law did not permit the goods to be cleared for home consumption without payment of duty, there being no exemption from payment of such duty. The permission for clearance, granted by the proper officer, was subject to payment of duty. As there was no payment of duty, there was no valid permission either. In the result, the clearance of the goods was unauthorised and illegal and this very fact rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Clause (j) of Section 111 of the Customs Act. The confiscation ordered by the Commissioner is not to be faulted. However, whether the above penalty was liable to be imposed on the appellant would depend on wh .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... rnational". In the relevant show cause notice issued to the importer, CHA and others, it was mainly alleged that the duty payment endorsements made on the relevant Bills of Entry (for home consumption) prior to clearance of the goods were forged. The duty on the goods as assessed in the Bills of Entry had not actually been paid and therefore, it was alleged, the goods were liable to be confiscated under Section 111(j) of the Customs Act. In this connection, it was also alleged that penalties were liable to be imposed on the importer and the CHA. A penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act was also proposed against the appellant, brother of the CHA. It was alleged that he had associated himself with the modus operandi of clearance of the goods .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... o not applicable. 4. Ld. JDR submits that, admittedly, no duty on the goods was paid or collected and therefore the clearance of the goods cannot be considered to have been made in terms of the permission endorsed on the relevant Bills of Entry by the proper officer of Customs. DR enumerates four stages at customs in relation to imported goods follows : (i) Filing of Bill of Entry (ii) Assessment (iii) Payment of the duty assessed (iv) Clearance of the goods. In this case, the third stage was not passed through as there was no payment of duty. Hence the goods could not legitimately reach the clearance stage. The permission given in good faith by the proper officer of Customs for clearance of the goods was invalid ab initio for want of payme .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... payment of duty. This forgery, which is not in dispute, rendered the clearance of the goods illegal inasmuch as law did not permit the goods to be cleared for home consumption without payment of duty, there being no exemption from payment of such duty. The permission for clearance, granted by the proper officer, was subject to payment of duty. As there was no payment of duty, there was no valid permission either. In the result, the clearance of the goods was unauthorised and illegal and this very fact rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Clause (j) of Section 111 of the Customs Act. The confiscation ordered by the Commissioner is not to be faulted. However, whether the above penalty was liable to be imposed on the appellant woul .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... wing specific and particular words should be construed as limited to things which are of the same nature as those specified and not its reverse, that specific words which precede are controlled by the general words which follow." According to the above doctrine, the meaning of the expression "in any other manner of dealing with" should be understood in a sense similar or comparable to how the preceding words viz. carrying, removing, depositing etc. are understood. In other words, "any other manner of dealing" with the goods is also some physical manner of dealing with the goods. In the impugned order, there is no finding that the appellant physically dealt with the goods in question, nor was any allegation to this effect raised against him .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates