Case Law Details
Evershine Customs (C & F) Pvt. Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs
a) The penalty under section 112 on the Customs Broker is set aside because even if the allegation that the CB has not fulfilled his obligations under CBLR 2013 is proven, no penalty can be imposed on this ground under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
b) The demand of duty under section 28(4) in respect of the goods which were not yet cleared for home consumption is pre-mature and cannot be sustained. It also cannot be sustained because officers of DRI are not proper officer for issuing a demand under section 28 as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cannon India.
c) The demand of duty under section 28(4) on the goods which were seized from the shop (and hence already cleared for home consumption) cannot be sustained because only the proper officer, i.e., the officer who did the assessment under section 17 or his successor in office can issue a demand and not officers of DRI as laid down by Supreme Court in Canon India.
d) Insofar as the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties on the importer is concerned, the matter is remanded to the original authority to follow the procedure prescribed under section 138B in respect of each of the statements being relied upon and pass a reasoned order after following principles of natural justice. This remand is only with respect to the confiscation and penalties on the importer and not regarding the demands of duty from the importer and the penalty on the Customs Broker both of which we have set aside.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
