Seven executives of the unit of South Korea’s electronics and devices maker Samsung have approached a court to reject a penalty of about 8.1 million dollars (about Rs 692 crore) from a court. This penalty is involved in a tax demand demand of about 60.1 million dollars (about Rs 5,135 crore) for the wrong classification of Samsung allegedly by Samsung.

A one of reates Report In the legal documents and a source, it has been told that these Samsung executives have argued that there was no ‘serious crime’. In January this year, the Tax Authority found that Samsung and some of its executives had incorrectly classified the import of a major equipment of a mobile tower between 2018 and 2021 saved tariffs. However, Samsung challenged this order in a tax appeal tribunal. The company had correct its classification of import and denied any disturbance.

In this case, a tax demand of about $ 52 million (about Rs 4,443 crore) was demanded from Samsung. Apart from this, some executives of the company were asked to pay a penalty of about 8.1 million dollars (about Rs 692 crore) to ‘know and deliberately’ in the wrong classification of the import. In an appeal filed in the High Court in Mumbai, Ravi Chadha, the logistics executive of the company’s unit in the country, has said that the two to three days of the penalty had issued a penalty order by Samsung and its executives, two to three days of receiving a detailed answer of hundreds of pages and “hasty” was issued by Ander Authorities of two to three days. This appeal has not been made public but Reuters have seen it. It states, “This period is very short to study deeply. The case is limited to the interpretation of the entries of tariffs. There has been no serious crime in it.” Chaddha was imposed a penalty of about $ 1.1 million (about 95 crore rupees).

In this regard, Samsung unit and Chaddha did not answer the questions sent by Reuters in the country. The Tax Authority has also not answered the request sent for comments. In this case, the online order of the court shows that six other executives of the company in this case have also challenged the order of Tax Authority.