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.

Cc, Chennai Vs. M/S. Shri Jai Durga Import (P) Ltd.

Cc, Chennai vs M/S. Shri Jai Durga Import (P) Ltd.

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai Decided May 11, 2010
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/941681

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 Chennai
Judge
Decided On
Case Number
C/22 of 2004
Subject
Right to Information

Case Summary

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

Right to Information

Key legal issue
Right to Information

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Cc, Chennai

Advocate Shri C. Rangaraju, SDR, for the appellant. Shri S. Krishnanandh, Adv., for the respondent

Respondent

M/S. Shri Jai Durga Import (P) Ltd.

Excerpt

per: jyoti balasundaram the additional commissioner of customs had confiscated the goods declared as one step pregnancy test single pack imported by the respondents herein from china on the ground of mis-declaration of description and mis-declaration of value of the goods as it was found that the description on the single pack was one step hcg urine pregnancy test strip and that identical goods had been supplied by the same supplier from the same country of origin at the unit value of us$0.075 per piece, which was higher than the value declared by the importers, with an option to redeem the same on a fine of rs. 5000/- and had imposed a penalty under the provisions of section 112 (a) of the customs act, 1962. the revenue went in appeal to the commissioner (appeals) on the ground that section 114a of the customs act, 1962, ought to have been invoked and this section would make the importer liable to penalty equivalent to the duty sought to be evaded. the commissioner (appeals) rejected the plea of the revenue on the ground that there was no proposal initiated before the lower appellate authority for imposition of penalty under section 114a. there was no proceedings contemplated under section 114a of the customs act, and therefore, revenue could not seek to invoke the above provision for the first time in the appeal proceedings. hence, this appeal by the revenue. 2. we find no reason to interfere with the impugned order which is in accordance with law. hence, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.

Full Judgment

Per: Jyoti Balasundaram

The Additional Commissioner of Customs had confiscated the goods declared as One step pregnancy test single pack imported by the respondents herein from China on the ground of mis-declaration of description and mis-declaration of value of the goods as it was found that the description on the single pack was One step HCG Urine Pregnancy test strip and that identical goods had been supplied by the same supplier from the same country of origin at the unit value of US$0.075 per piece, which was higher than the value declared by the importers, with an option to redeem the same on a fine of Rs. 5000/- and had imposed a penalty under the provisions of Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue went in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) on the ground that Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962, ought to have been invoked and this Section would make the importer liable to penalty equivalent to the duty sought to be evaded. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the plea of the revenue on the ground that there was no proposal initiated before the lower appellate authority for imposition of penalty under Section 114A. There was no proceedings contemplated under Section 114A of the Customs Act, and therefore, Revenue could not seek to invoke the above provision for the first time in the appeal proceedings. Hence, this appeal by the Revenue.

2. We find no reason to interfere with the impugned order which is in accordance with law. Hence, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial