Goverdhan Creation Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Goverdhan Creation vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Dec 09, 2003

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/33365

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/33365
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: S T S.S.
Decided On: Dec 09, 2003
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

Goverdhan Creation

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Legal References

Reported In: (2000)(70)ECC592

Excerpt

1. export goods allowed to be shipped provisionally have been ordered to be confiscated under section 113 of the customs act, 1962 and a redemption fine of rs. 3 lakhs and penalty of rs. 75,000/- has been imposed under section 114 of the customs act, 1962 and drawback claim has been restricted to fob value of us$ 300 per piece as the values declared in other shipping bills by same kind of garments and the material used in this case appeared to be less than the material used in the shipping bill showing the value as us$ 300 by same supplier to same buyer. hence this appeal. (a) price has been raised to us$ 11.70 as per apparel export promotion council letter and for getting the quota. therefore there is no mens rea to misdeclare the export value, as per apparel export council recommendation. no market price/value misdeclared to claim excess drawback is brought on record. therefore liability for confiscation and penalty is set aside, since there is no ground to contest the fixation of drawback at us$ 3 per piece no orders are passed on that part. (b) appeal is therefore allowed only as regards liability to fine and penalty.

Full Judgment

1. Export goods allowed to be shipped provisionally have been ordered to be confiscated under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 and a redemption fine of Rs. 3 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 75,000/- has been imposed under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 and drawback claim has been restricted to FOB value of US$ 300 per piece as the values declared in other Shipping Bills by same kind of garments and the material used in this case appeared to be less than the material used in the Shipping bill showing the value as US$ 300 by same supplier to same buyer. Hence this appeal.

(a) Price has been raised to US$ 11.70 as per Apparel Export Promotion Council letter and for getting the quota. Therefore there is no mens rea to misdeclare the Export value, as per Apparel Export Council recommendation. No market price/value misdeclared to claim excess drawback is brought on record. Therefore liability for confiscation and penalty is set aside, since there is no ground to contest the fixation of drawback at US$ 3 per piece no orders are passed on that part.

(b) Appeal is therefore allowed only as regards liability to fine and penalty.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Goverdhan Creation vs Commissioner of Customs Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge S T S.S.