Back
ANITA SUMANTH, G. ARUL MURUGAN
Nemichand Desarlla, Proprietor, Ganapathy Enterprises – Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Customs – Respondent
JUDGMENT :
(Delivered by Dr.ANITA SUMANTH., J)
Prayer in C.M.A.No.84 of 2013: Appeal filed under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the Common Final Order No.701 to 767 of 2012 dated 22.06.2012 in Appeal No.C/408/07 Received by Appellant on 27.06.2012 passed by the Customs Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, confirming penalty amount against the Appellant imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
This order disposes 78 Civil Miscellaneous Appeals filed at the instance of importers, licence brokers and traders, as well as the Commissioner of Customs challenging an order passed on 14.06.2012 by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT/Tribunal) at Chennai. Since C.M.A No.1766 of 2016 involving identical issues was not listed on that date, the matter was directed to be listed in a special list and forms part of the batch being disposed today by way of this common order.
2. The CESTAT, by way of the impugned order, disposed 67 appeals preferred by importers and traders of Duty Entitlement Pass Book (DEPB) scrips and Telegraphic Release Advice (TRA) challenging adjudication orders, alleging that the TRAs and DEPBs
Fraudulent documents render transactions void; importers must exercise due diligence to avoid liability for penalties under the Customs Act.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, 1962 and the liability of an overseas entity for participating in a conspiracy to evade customs ....
The tribunal clarified the procedural requirements for admissibility of statements made under section 108 of the Customs Act, establishing that improper evidence leads to invalidation of confiscation....
Fraudulent amendment of shipping bills requires adherence to statutory evidential procedures; failure renders penalties invalid.
The Customs Broker cannot be held liable under Section 114 of the Customs Act for employee misconduct unless it is established that the employer was complicit or negligent in verifying documents and ....
The court upheld the Settlement Commission's authority to impose interest on customs duties as permissible under statutory provisions, emphasizing that non-fulfillment of export obligations mandates ....
The CESTAT has the authority to impose penalties under Section 112 of the Customs Act, and its findings of fact are binding unless shown to be perverse.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
