Case Law Details
Sachin Kshirsagar Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Mumbai)
Matter of classification is complex. According, held that there is no scope for indicting the individuals in these proceedings for deliberate misdeclaration. Penalty not imposed as the role of the individuals in the misdeclaration of stores and bunkers is not evident in the impugned order.
Facts-
The appeal concerns the import of ‘old and used self-propelled platform supply vessel Sagar Fortune’ as declared in bill of entry no. 2630993/28.07.2017 filed on behalf of M/s SS Offshore Pvt Ltd by M/s Babaji Shivram Clearing and Carriers Pvt Ltd, a licenced customs broker, in which the classification and valuation was altered for recovery of differential duty of ₹ 3,53,25,921 u/s. 28 (4) of Customs Act, 1962, along with applicable interest thereon, besides confiscation u/s. 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 with option to redeem on payment of fine of ₹ 2,50,00,000. In addition, differential duty of ₹ 24,36,879 on 1,33,000 litres of ‘high-speed diesel’, 9220 litres of ‘lubricating oil’ and 5250 litres of ‘hydraulic oil’ was ordered for recovery under section 28 (4) of Customs Act, 1962, along with applicable interest thereon, besides being confiscated under section 111(l) and section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 with option to redeem on payment of ₹ 6,00,000 as fine. Penalties under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 was imposed on the importer and other appellants herein in addition to penalties under section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962.
Conclusion-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
