Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Manish Gupta Proprietor of WLM India Vs Commissioner of Customs (Delhi High Court)
Appeal Number : CUSAA 5/2021
Date of Judgement/Order : 31/01/2022
Related Assessment Year :
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Manish Gupta Proprietor of WLM India Vs Commissioner of Customs (Delhi High Court)

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 20.11.2017, passed by the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (hereafter ‘the Tribunal’) in customs appeal 50843/2017. The appellant had preferred the said appeal impugning an order dated 13.05.2015, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), New Delhi, which in turn was passed in an appeal preferred by the appellant against an order-in-original dated 31.03.2014, passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication).

2. By the order-in-original dated 31.03.2014, the Adjudicating Authority had imposed a penalty of ₹15 lakhs on the appellant under Section 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962 (hereafter “the Customs Act”).

3. The proceedings relate to the consignments of goods which were found to be prohibited goods (Red Sandalwood/Red Sanders). The appellant claims that it is a consolidator for two courier companies, namely, M/s. Fedex and M/s. Overseas Courier Services (OCS). Admittedly, the said consignments had been accepted by the appellant and it had issued the Airway Bills (although, the appellant claims it had done so as a coordinator). According to the appellant, one of the consignments was forwarded by another courier agency namely, M/s. Shuttle Express, New Delhi (which was also one of the noticees before the Adjudicating Authority). The other consignments were received from two individuals, who were Chinese nationals, Mr. Zhicheng Li and Mr. Zhang Jun.

4. According to the appellant, the said persons had walked into its office at Nehru Place, New Delhi and had booked the said shipments. Admittedly, the appellant had generated the computerized Airway Bills. However, the concerned authorities found that the two individuals, Mr. Zhicheng Li and Mr. Zhang Jun were not present in India on the date when the consignments were booked.

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
August 2024
M T W T F S S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031