Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Samurai Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Samurai Electronics Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Apr 16, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/22160

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Samurai Electronics Pvt Ltd

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai

Excerpt

1. after hearing both parties on the early hearing application, we have decided to take up the appeal itself for disposal.2. the appeal is against the order of the commissioner of customs imposing a penalty of rs. 1.00 lakh on the appellant, ordering confiscation under clause (d) of section 111 of the act of two consignments of combination of compact disc player with tuner and a consignment of music systems incorporating a compact disc player with an option to redeem them on payment of fine of rs. 14.00 lakhs.3. the reason advanced by the commissioner for confiscation, the absence of an import licence that the policy at the relevant time required, is not challenged by the representative of the appellant. he however seeks leniency in fine and penalty on the ground that the importer had earlier been permitted to clear a consignment of goods identical to those under consideration against a special import licence.4. this arguments was advanced before the commissioner. he has said that the fact of one consignment being cleared in a different custom house is no ground for accepting the validity of the import. we think he is right. however, while the commissioner has relied upon this earlier importation for the grant of leniency, we are of the view that the facts of this case call for further leniency. the value of the goods in question is rs 32.70 lakhs approx. taking into account the fact that the earlier clearance could have led the appellant to believe that the goods were freely importable without a special import licence, we reduce the redemption from rs 14.00 lakhs to rs 8.00 lakhs. but for this modification, we confirm the order of the commissioner.

Full Judgment

1. After hearing both parties on the early hearing application, we have decided to take up the appeal itself for disposal.

2. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Customs imposing a penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh on the appellant, ordering confiscation under clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act of two consignments of combination of compact disc player with tuner and a consignment of music systems incorporating a compact disc player with an option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 14.00 lakhs.

3. The reason advanced by the Commissioner for confiscation, the absence of an import licence that the policy at the relevant time required, is not challenged by the representative of the appellant. He however seeks leniency in fine and penalty on the ground that the importer had earlier been permitted to clear a consignment of goods identical to those under consideration against a special import licence.

4. This arguments was advanced before the Commissioner. He has said that the fact of one consignment being cleared in a different Custom House is no ground for accepting the validity of the import. We think he is right. However, while the Commissioner has relied upon this earlier importation for the grant of leniency, we are of the view that the facts of this case call for further leniency. The value of the goods in question is Rs 32.70 lakhs approx. Taking into account the fact that the earlier clearance could have led the appellant to believe that the goods were freely importable without a special import licence, we reduce the redemption from Rs 14.00 lakhs to Rs 8.00 lakhs. But for this modification, we confirm the order of the Commissioner.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial