A.V.M.Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

A.V.M.Enterprises vs Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai Decided Nov 17, 2009

~1 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/942246

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/942246
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chennai
Judge: The Honourable Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President &Amp; the Honourable Dr. Chittaranjan Satapathy, Technical Member
Decided On: Nov 17, 2009
Case Number: Appeal No.C/337 of 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

A.V.M.Enterprises

Advocate Shri A.K.Jayaraj, Advocate. Shri C.Rangaraju, SDR

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

Excerpt

per jyoti balasundaram consumer goods such as baby kit set, iron box, hand mixer, cosmetics etc. have been confiscated under the provisions of section 111 (d) and (m) of the customs act, 1962, the value thereof has been enhanced, redemption fine of rs.1,50,000/- has been levied in lieu of confiscation and fine of rs.2,000/- has been levied in lieu of confiscation of goods valued at rs.43,000/- approx. a penalty of rs.5,000/- has been imposed on the proprietor of importer. 2. we have heard both sides. the enhancement of value is sustainable as the loading of the value has been done on the basis of contemporaneous imports. there is no doubt that the provisions of section 111 (d) and (m) are attracted against the importers. therefore, confiscation is warranted. the fine and penalty amounts are also very reasonable having regard to the value of goods and we therefore see no reason to interfere with the same. 3. in the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Full Judgment

Per Jyoti Balasundaram

Consumer goods such as Baby kit set, iron box, hand mixer, cosmetics etc. have been confiscated under the provisions of Section 111 (d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, the value thereof has been enhanced, redemption fine of Rs.1,50,000/- has been levied in lieu of confiscation and fine of Rs.2,000/- has been levied in lieu of confiscation of goods valued at Rs.43,000/- approx.

A penalty of Rs.5,000/- has been imposed on the proprietor of importer.

2. We have heard both sides. The enhancement of value is sustainable as the loading of the value has been done on the basis of contemporaneous imports. There is no doubt that the provisions of Section 111 (d) and (m) are attracted against the importers. Therefore, confiscation is warranted. The fine and penalty amounts are also very reasonable having regard to the value of goods and we therefore see no reason to interfere with the same.

3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Chen... Same Parties A.V.M.Enterprises vs Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Same Subject Land Acquisition Same Judge The Honourable Ms. Jyoti Balasundaram, Vice President &Amp; t...