Ask Jurishour AI

Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
tdb_templates
saswp_reviews
saswp-collections
saswp_rvs_location
tdc-review-email
web-story-font
web-story
googlesitekit_email
tds_locker
tds_email
saswp
mailpoet_page
mailpoet_email
tdcpt_tunes
tdc-review
pronamic_payment
pronamic_gateway
pronamic_pay_subscr
wpcode
HomeIndirect TaxesBonafide Mistake By Dept. In Not Imposing Mandatory Penalty: CESTAT Directs Customs...

Bonafide Mistake By Dept. In Not Imposing Mandatory Penalty: CESTAT Directs Customs Duty Evader To Pay

Published on

🚀 Stay Connected With JurisHour

WhatsApp X Telegram

The Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has directed the customs duty evader to pay penalty as it was a bonafide mistake by the department in not imposing mandatory penalty.

The bench of Binu Tamta (Judicial Member) and P.V. Subba Rao (Technical Member) has observed that the adjudicating authority had failed to impose the mandatory penalty under the provisions of section 114A of the Customs Act in respect of one Bill of Entry.

An Intelligence was gathered that the appellant were trying to import the 100% polyester knitted cut pile fabric under two Bills of Entry by mis-declaring the item as “100% Polyester Knitted Fabric” thus by mis-declaration and mis- classification, they were trying to evade the customs duty. 

The goods were examined by the SIIB officers and samples were drawn and sent to Textile Commission, New Delhi for testing. On the basis of TTC report that the fabric was 100% Polyester Cut Pile Fabric, both the consignments were seized on 27.03.2009 and 30.04.2009 respectively.

Show cause notice has been issued on 27.07.2009 to the appellant for re-classification of goods; confiscation of goods; demand of differential duty and imposition of penalty under Section 112/114A of the Customs Act, 1962.

The adjudicating authority confirmed the duty of Rs. 47,89,393/- and Rs. 15,59,363/- in respect of the two Bills of Entry and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 1,50,857000 and penalty of Rs. 47,89,393/- only under Section 114A of the Customs Act. 

The appellant has filed the appeal before this Tribunal and department also filed appeal against non-imposition of mandatory penalty of Rs. 15,59,363 under Section 114A in respect of one Bill of Entry.

The basic issue to be decided is whether “100% Polyester Knitted Fabric” imported by the appellant were mis-declared and mis-classified under CTH60059000, attracting Customs duty @ of 10% Adv. or the same merits classification as “Polyester Cut Pile Fabric” under CTI 60019200 attracting customs duty at the rate of 10% Adv. or 4Rs.100/- per KG, whichever is higher.

The tribunal while ruling in favour of the department held that the appellant is liable to pay the mandatory penalty of equivalent amount of Rs. 15,59,363.

Case Details

Case Title:  M/s Sarvatra International Versus  Commissioner of Customs, ICD Tuglakabad, New Delhi

Case No.: Customs Appeal No. 352 of 2010

Date: 29/01/2025

Counsel For Appellant: Nagendra Yadav

Counsel For Respondent: None

Read More: FinMin Clarifies On Regularizing GST On Support Services Provided By An Electricity Transmission Or Distribution Utility

Mariya Paliwala
Mariya Paliwalahttps://www.jurishour.in/
Mariya is the Senior Editor at Juris Hour. She has 7+ years of experience on covering tax litigation stories from the Supreme Court, High Courts and various tribunals including CESTAT, ITAT, NCLAT, NCLT, etc. Mariya graduated from MLSU Law College, Udaipur (Raj.) with B.A.LL.B. and also holds an LL.M. She started her career as a freelance tax reporter in the leading online legal news companies.

Latest articles

GST Registration Cancellation Quashed Over Missing Verification Report And Unexplained Retrospective Effect: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order cancelling a firm’s GST registration...

Internal Departmental Delays Can’t Extend GST Refund Appeal Deadline: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the department’s appeal in a dispute involving recovery...

GST Officer Blocks Rs. 1.61 Crore ITC Beyond His Powers; Allahabad High Court Orders Review Of Similar Cases

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Commissioner, State Tax, to examine whether officers...

GST Recovery Put on Hold as Allahabad HC Flags Substantial Question of Law Over Portal Upload, Communication of Orders

The Allahabad High Court has taken serious note of concerns relating to the chronology...

More like this

GST Registration Cancellation Quashed Over Missing Verification Report And Unexplained Retrospective Effect: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has set aside an order cancelling a firm’s GST registration...

Internal Departmental Delays Can’t Extend GST Refund Appeal Deadline: Karnataka High Court

The Karnataka High Court has dismissed the department’s appeal in a dispute involving recovery...

GST Officer Blocks Rs. 1.61 Crore ITC Beyond His Powers; Allahabad High Court Orders Review Of Similar Cases

The Allahabad High Court has directed the Commissioner, State Tax, to examine whether officers...