Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 6 of 6 (0.19 seconds)Section 114AA in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
The Customs Act, 1962
The Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 1988
Commissioner Of Customs And Central ... vs Kabul Textiles (Llc) on 19 April, 2005
2. According to Learned Counsel for the appellant, the impugned
goods were yet to be entered for import under section 46 of Customs
Act, 1962 when seized by the investigating authorities and proposed
for confiscation. He contended that the appellant had nothing to do
with the import inasmuch as the goods were consigned to M/s Petals
Traders. It was also pointed out by the Learned Counsel that the
customs authorities had invoked Prohibition of Benami Property
Transactions Act, 1988 for charging the appellant with consequences
that, normally, devolve on importer of offending goods. He relied
upon the decision of the Tribunal in Vijaybhav v. Commissioner of
Customs, Airport, Mumbai [2014 (313) ELT 506 (Tri.-Mumbai)] and
in Bashayir v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2006 (206) ELT
541 (Tri.-Channai)] and of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in
Commissioner of Customs & Excise, Goa v. Kabul Textiles (LLC)
[2006 (206) 1173 (Bom.)] to sustain his argument that no penalty
would lie against entities unless goods had been entered for import.
1
[order-in-appeal no. 1179 (CAC)/2020 (JNCH)/Appeals dated 12th October 2020]
C/86285/2020
Section 30 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
1