Seven Samsung India executives have asked a court to revoke penalties of $81 million included in New Delhi's $601-million tax demand from the company for allegedly misclassifying some imports, arguing "no grave offence" had been committed, according to legal papers and a source.
The Indian tax authority in January found Samsung and its executives evaded tariffs by misclassifying imports of key mobile tower equipment from 2018 to 2021. Samsung has separately challenged the order before a tax appeals tribunal, where it has defended its declarations and denied any wrongdoing.
While Samsung's India unit faced a $520 million demand, employees were asked to pay penalties totaling $81 million for "knowingly and intentionally" playing a role in the misclassification of imports.
In a High Court filing in Mumbai which was not made public but was seen by Reuters, Samsung India logistics executive Ravi Chadha said the authorities issued the penalty within two to three days of receiving hundreds of pages of detailed responses from the company and its executives in January, and the process was "rushed".
"This timeframe is utterly insufficient to conduct the requisite in-depth study," read the filing by Chadha, who faces a fine of 950 million rupees ($11.1 million).
"The present case is limited to the interpretation of tariff entries, no grave offence has been committed."
Samsung India and Chadha did not respond to Reuters queries. India's tax authority did not respond immediately to requests for comment.
Online court records show the six other executives including the network division's vice president, Sung Beam Hong, a general manager for finance, Sheetal Jain, and Samsung's general manager for indirect taxes, Nikhil Aggarwal, have also challenged the tax authority's order.
The lawyer for all seven executives, Sriram Sridharan of Indian law firm Lakshmikumaran & Sridharan, did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The law firm also represents Samsung in the tax appeals tribunal challenge.
Their pleas and grounds for revoking the penalty are identical to Chadha's, said a source with direct knowledge of the ongoing lawsuits.
In his court filing, Chadha argued that the "egregiously exorbitant" penalty is impossible for any salaried employee to bear, and it would take him more than 100 years to settle the amount given his earnings.
(Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
You’ve reached your limit of {{free_limit}} free articles this month.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
Already subscribed? Log in
Subscribe to read the full story →
Smart Quarterly
₹900
3 Months
₹300/Month
Smart Essential
₹2,700
1 Year
₹225/Month
Super Saver
₹3,900
2 Years
₹162/Month
Renews automatically, cancel anytime
Here’s what’s included in our digital subscription plans
Exclusive premium stories online
Over 30 premium stories daily, handpicked by our editors


Complimentary Access to The New York Times
News, Games, Cooking, Audio, Wirecutter & The Athletic
Business Standard Epaper
Digital replica of our daily newspaper — with options to read, save, and share


Curated Newsletters
Insights on markets, finance, politics, tech, and more delivered to your inbox
Market Analysis & Investment Insights
In-depth market analysis & insights with access to The Smart Investor


Archives
Repository of articles and publications dating back to 1997
Ad-free Reading
Uninterrupted reading experience with no advertisements


Seamless Access Across All Devices
Access Business Standard across devices — mobile, tablet, or PC, via web or app