Page 15 - ELT_15th July 2020_Vol 373_Part 2

2020 ] INDEX - 15th July, 2020 xiii
Evident from voluntary statement and Digital forensic analysis report
that petitioner still in possession of mobile numbers - Ample evidence
gathered through mobile of accused No. 1 - More incriminating data,
evidence suspected to be stored in two mobile phones with petitioner -
Petitioner not cooperating to furnish it for smooth investigation - Every
possibility of petitioner damaging/destroying digital/material evidence
if enlarged on bail - Investigating agency required to unearth
ramifications of offences and release of petitioner at this stage likely to
hamper investigation - Direction of Supreme Court to release certain
prisoner on parole or interim bail to restrict transmission of COVID-19
not ground release petitioner on bail — Shihabuddin Thadathalli v. Senior
Intelligence Officer, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Bangalore (Kar.) ............ 188
Bitumen import - Penalty not imposable on misdeclaration of country of
origin - See under IMPORT ............................ 280
Cancellation of Bail when sustainable - See under BAIL ............. 162
C.B.E. & C. Instruction F. No. 475/39/90-Cus.VII, dated 8-8-1990 - See under
INTEREST ...................................... 223
CENTRAL EXCISE ACT, 1944 :
— Section 9D - See under ADJUDICATION ..................... 258
— Section 11A - See under DEMAND ........................ 193
CENTRAL EXCISE NOTIFICATIONS :
— Notification No. 50/2003-C.E. - See under DEMAND .............. 193
Classification of Segway imported in CKD condition - See under SEGWAY ... 267
CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1973 :
— Section 167(2) - See under BAIL .......................... 162
Condition of sale of imported goods not making it obligatory on importer to
incur costs and services for sale of goods, amount not includible in value
of imported goods - See under VALUATION (CUSTOMS) ........... 250
Confiscation and penalty - Misdeclaration - Generation of wrong documents
due to defect in inventory software - Confiscation on the ground that
assessee failed to explain as to how software malfunctioned and it should
have been careful while preparing export documents - First set of
documents filed by assessee inadvertently generated wrong set -
Assessee on being pointed out by customs house agent immediately
placed correct document before Customs Authority on same very date -
No mala fide attributable to assessee so as to confiscate export
consignment or to impose penalty upon them - Second set filed by
appellants correctly covered all aspects of export consignment including
quantity, quality description and value, etc. - Confiscation and penalty
not called for - Sections 111 and 114 of Customs Act, 1962 — Kaka Carpets v.
Commr. of C. Ex. (Adjudication), New Delhi (Tri. - All.) ................... 286
— and redemption fine not sustainable on misdeclaration of country of
origin on import of Bitumen - See under IMPORT ................ 280
— Goods not proved to be specified goods liable for confiscation whereas
entire seizure and adjudication proceedings initiated on a presumption
that Goat Skin is a notified item and place of search was a notified area,
attracting the jurisdiction of the Customs authority - See under SEIZURE . . 209
— Products imported being consciously misdeclared by appellant to evade
Customs duty, liable to confiscation under Section 111(m) of Customs
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th July 2020  15