Records 1 to 20 of 912

Customs - Whether written submissions filed by appellants can be treated as applications - no applications filed by the appellants as directed by HC and that the appellants had only filed a set of documents containing written submissions, balance sheets etc. – as per CEGAT (Procedure), the documents filed by the appellants did not conform to the requirements of an application - Tribunal was right in dismissing the appeals for non-compliance of the provisions of Section 129 E of the Customs Act, 1962.

Customs - Request to cancel B/E filed by buyer & filing of fresh B/E for same goods after substituting respondent’s name - held that Tribunal was not justified in permitting the respondent to file a fresh bill of entry in respect of 500 MT of imported goods, contrary to provisions of s. 149 of the Customs Act - Tribunal was also not justified in permitting filing of fresh B/E after an out of charge order is issued so as to substitute the name of the importer as finalized – revenue’s appeal is allowed

Customs - Whether the Commissioner of Customs, Bombay has jurisdiction/authority to demand customs duty from the petitioner in respect of goods which are not at all imported by the petitioner at the Bombay port – Held, no - If the Commissioner of Customs (Delhi) is unable to verify the documents, it cannot be presumed by Commissioner of Customs (Mumbai) that the documents furnished by the petitioner are not genuine - Detention order issued for enforcement of the demand raised under the OIO are quashed

Customs - Whether ‘Explanation’ added by Not. No. 3/98-Cus., dated 11-2-98 to Not. No.11/97-Cus., dated 1-3-97 is clarificatory of the expression ‘computer software’ so as to have retrospective effect – revenue’s contention (in view of above amendment) that software imported prior to 11.2.98 and used in telecom equipment, not to be considered as computer software, is not acceptable – sine amending notification being prejudicial to importer, cannot be applied retrospectively – exemption cannot be denied

Customs - Petitioner prays for staying the operation of the New Shipper Not. No.15/23/06-DGAD and permitting provisional assessment – petitioner plea that designated authority has been over cautious in terms of grant of confidentially of information disclosed, is not a sufficient reason for granting interim relief - application for interim relief is dismissed – in view of Rule 22 of Anti-Dumping Rules, initiation of a new shipper review cannot be with retrospective effect in case of first time exporter

Customs - Director General of Foreign Trade setting aside the order passed by the Additional Director General whereby it was ordered to recover the DEPB benefit along with interest; suspension of licence; and imposing penalty - in terms of S. 16 of FTDR, the order against which an appeal has been preferred cannot be interfered in revisional jurisdiction – held that penalty could not be imposed by the Revisional Authority as the appeal against the order imposing penalty is pending before Add. Director

Customs - Appellants had imported “Emu chicks and eggs” claiming the benefit of Notification no. 23/98 - these imports were not under any specific import licence – therefore, confiscation was justified – since there was no mala fide intention to import unauthorizedly, penalty is not imposable – heading 01.05 covers “certain specified birds and species thereof” and Heading 01.06 covers “other live animals” – EMU birds was rightly classified under heading 01.06 by Commissioner

Customs - Import of old & used barge – revenue contend that the year of manufacture of the ship was 1972 as keel of the vessel was laid in 1972 – whereas as builder’s certificate and the surveyor’s report show that the vessel was built in 1989 - there is no material on record to the contrary - therefore, the importers have satisfied us that the vessel was less than 25 years old at the time of its import – no contravention of licensing provisions by importers - confiscation & penalty is set aside

Customs - Customs Duty Exemption Certificate from the DGHS for import of various hospital equipments - categorisation of the appellant under category 2 of the table annexed to Notification No.64/88- Cus., was cancelled - impugned petition challenging the cancellation, and applying for change of classification from category 2 to 1 – held that, after a hospital ceases to be entitled to the exemption, because of the cancellation of the categorisation, there is no question of changing the category

Customs - Refund – limitation - in a letter dated 19-1-2005 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs (DEPB Section), the appellants requested for recredit of the BCD amount in their DEPB as also for refund of the other duties of Customs – refund claim filed on 30-3-2005was rejected as time-barred - held that, refund claim made in proper format beyond limitation period, is to be treated as in continuation of earlier claim which was made in letter within time limit – refund is not time-barred

Customs - Printer - Classification of “Ink Cartridges with Print head assembly” can be determined by classification of machines for which cartridges are used – if cartridges are meant for printers of CH 84.71, the same would be classifiable u/h 84.73 – if the machines for which these cartages are meant, are classifiable u/h 84.79, the same would be classifiable u/h 84.79 – held that Digital laser printer with high speed resolution and digital document scanner is correctly classifiable u/sh 8471.60

Customs - Amount collected without extending/considering benefit of unconditional exemption notification 20/2006 – duty paid at higher rate erroneously – held that it was incumbent on part of assessing officer to take into account said notification, which he omitted – it is a case of sheer omission on part of AO - refund cannot be denied on ground of non-challenge to assessment order – appeal of assessee is allowed

Customs - Confiscation - Allegation of import of used parts of the capital goods - imported goods described as “used horizontal boring machine in dismantled condition” - In the absence of any challenge, that the imports, which were made by the respondents was of complete machine & declared as a machine, in all three Bills of Entries and a factual findings as to that being the same, it has to be accepted that the respondents had every intention to import “used Horizontal Boring Machine”, not parts of CG

Customs - What would be the effect of a retracted confession for the purpose of levy of penalty under FERA, 1973 - violation of Section 8(3) and 9(1)(a) - remittance of the foreign exchange worth US Dollars - no reliance should be placed on the retracted confessional statement unless the same was corroborated by some independent evidence - order of the Tribunal and HC cannot be sustained – assessee’s appeal is allowed - amount which is with the Department shall be refunded to the appellant

Customs - Revenue alleged that Appellant No. 3 CHA failed to verify the identity of the person, who was authorized to sign the export documents by the exporter - allegation that CHA firm has irregularly allowed their CHA licence to be used by Appellant no. 1 and 2 to carry out business who got “G. Card and H. Card” – CHA explained the irregularity, which was not refuted in the impugned order. Therefore, the revocation of CHA licence is not justified - forfeiture of security is set aside

Customs - Customs Notification No. 36/96 (Sl. No.122) and Notification No. 11/97 (Sl. No. 116) provided for concessional rate of duty for horological raw materials imported for the manufacture of components of wrist watches – raw material used in mfg. of ‘strap’ parts are not specified in above notifications - cross-utilization of the imported raw materials amounted to breach of a common condition of the Notifications and consequently the benefit of concessional rate of duty was not admissible

Customs - Single Judge rejected the Writ petition (WP) & not interferred with the orders impugned in the WP - Writ Appeal is required to be dismissed on the ground of inordinate delay and laches caused in filing the Writ Petition as the appellant has not explained the delay by proper/tenable reasons as the impugned orders were passed in the year 2000 and 2004 which are challenged undisputedly after lapse of 7 and 3 years in the WP – single judge order that natural justice not violated is upheld

Customs - Interpretation to para 2.17 of FTP, 2004-09 - import of Used Projection fixture and Used Pinned Rollers in this case would be import of old and used i.e. second-hand capital goods as per para 2.17 - Para 2.17 uses the term “import of second-hand CG, including refurbished/reconditioned spares shall be allowed freely”. This would not restrict spares, which are not refurbished/reconditioned - effort of Revenue to equate “spare” with “part” and, therefore, deny the imports would not be acceptable

Customs - Contention of appellant is that, goods were assessed to appropriate duty on filing ex-bond bills entry prior to introduction of SAD and goods were ordered to be out of charge prior to the introduction of SAD, therefore, they are not liable to pay the Special Additional Duty of Customs which was introduced thereafter - only due to problem in transportation, goods actually transported from warehouse after introduction of SAD – in such cases, SAD is not imposable

Customs - Refund - excess duty paid – respondent had collected only the contracted amount as evident from the ledger, the invoice and the contract - finding of the Commissioner that the total amount received by the respondent also included the amount of customs duty on the goods at the time of importation was clearly without any basis - it was evident that the refund of excess amount of duty paid by the appellant was beyond the contracted price. Consequently, refund was rightly allowed by tribunal