Case Law Details
V.R. Tools Vs The Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
Facts- Appellant filed first BOE on 15.11.2011 for clearance of imported goods namely carbide tips classifying the goods under CTH 28499090. The appellant on 28.11.2011 made an amendment application. It appeared to department that the appellant sought for amendment of the declared invoice details with fabricated invoice details in order to evade payment of customs duty. Thereafter, the appellant sought the request of re-export of the goods.
Vide OIO dated 24.12.2012 the request to re-export the goods was denied and penalty of INR 171000 u/s 114AA was imposed. A separate penalty of INR 58,000 was also imposed on Mr. S. Manoj Kumar u/s 114AA.
Conclusion- I have to conclude that it was a genuine mistake of issuing wrong invoice which has been used by the CHA to file the Bill of Entry. The wrong invoice of USD 23750 was not given by the appellant, but the same was collected by CHA from the shipping liner. The appellant cannot be implicated for such mistake by imposing penalty. Moreover, the penalty imposed under Section 114AA is attracted only when there is deliberate falsification of documents in order to get undue benefit.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT CHENNAI ORDER
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
