|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 11 of 11 Records
-
2012 (1) TMI 365
... ...
... ... ..... ned, the order of detention can be set aside. (f) Same is the view taken by the Kerala High Court in the decision reported in 2004 (2) KLT 1094 (Lekha Nandakumar v. Government of India). 12. Applying the above cited decisions to the facts of this case, we are of the view that the detention order passed against the detenu cannot be allowed to stand as there are unreasonable and unexplained delay in execution of the detention order dated 4.11.2010 till 22.8.2011 and on the ground of not placing the relevant documents before the State Advisory Board/Confirming Authority. 13. As we are setting aside the detention order on the above two grounds, we are of the view that the other grounds raised by the petitioner need not be gone into. 14. In the result, the habeas corpus petition is allowed. The detention order dated 4.11.2010 is set aside. The detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case. Connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 304
Composite penalty on partners - Whether the learned Tribunal committed error in setting aside the penalties imposed upon the responsible persons, under Section 114(iii) of Customs Act, 1962 & Rule 26 of the Central Excise Rules, 2002, specially when all the said persons had admitted their office(s) during the course of investigation? - Held that: - a composite penalty stands imposed on the partners under the provisions of two different Acts, without any demarcations, we are constrained to set aside the same on the above ground - reliance was placed in the case of COMMISSIONER, C. EX. & CUSTOMS, SURAT – II Versus RG. AGARWAL [2008 (9) TMI 146 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], where authorities are not clear as to whether the penalty is to be levied for violation of which provision, and therefore the penalty was set aside - penalty set aside - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2012 (1) TMI 300
... ...
... ... ..... export obligations which have been committed to the Government of India while importing the inputs duty free. We find that the appellant have to be put to some condition to hear and dispose the appeal. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to deposit an amount of ₹ 1.50 crores (Rupees one crore and fifty lakhs only) within a period of 6 (six) weeks from today and report compliance to the first appellate authority. While complying with the above order of pre-deposit, the appellants are at liberty to deposit the whatever amount is available in Cenvat credit and balance amount by cash through TR-6 challan. On such compliance being reported on or before 21-2-2012, the first appellate authority will restore the appeal to its original number and dispose the appeal, after following the principles of natural justice. 4. The Stay Petition and the appeal are disposed of by way of remand, subject to the condition as indicated hereinabove. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
-
2012 (1) TMI 269
Detention of goods - In the scrutiny of the documents of the above shipping bills, it was revealed that there was gross misdeclaration with respect to quantity, quality and valuation of the declared export goods viz.”Dupattas” and “Sarong”, besides claiming disproportionately higher amount of drawback
-
2012 (1) TMI 204
Import of popcorn-maize - actual user condition - N/N. 38/2002-2007 dated 04.10.2002 - Held that: - the petitioners have no vested or accrued right for the issuance of permits on the MEE or NQE, nor is the Government bound by its previous policy. It would be open to the Government to evolve the new schemes and the petitioners would get their legitimate expectations accomplished in accordance with either of the two schemes subject to their satisfying the conditions required in the scheme. The High Court, therefore, was right in its conclusion that the Government is not barred by the promises or legitimate expectation from evolving new policy in the impugned notification.”
The policy of the Government of India stipulating the customs duty at Nil rate and withdrawing the condition of actual user cannot be said to be arbitrary, particularly, in view of the factual position evident from the table, extracted above, that the imports being way below the quota prescribed has no affect on domestic growers or the market and no harm to domestic growers or consumers is caused by notifying duty free import of maize (corn) and withdrawing the restriction of actual user.
Petition disposed off - decided partly in favor of petitioner.
-
2012 (1) TMI 174
... ...
... ... ..... recovery, we are of the view that imposing such an onerous condition certainly is prejudicial and it will cause undue hardship to the appellant. In order to avoid undue hardship to the appellant, the impugned order of the Tribunal, in respect of the direction issued for pre-deposit in the waiver applications filed by the appellant should be modified. Accordingly, the impugned order stands modified to the effect that the appellant shall deposit a sum of ₹ 10 lakhs only towards duty, within eight weeks from today and on such deposit, the balance duty and penalties imposed on the company shall stand waived and the recovery thereof is stayed pending appeal. It is also further made clear that on making such deposit, the Tribunal shall take up the appeal to its file and decide the same on merits and in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible. The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is ordered accordingly. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 157
... ...
... ... ..... very purpose of the law will be frustrated and fraud will be encouraged if the stand suggested by the learned Counsel for the appellants is to be accepted. Such a course will subject the provision to frequent abuse. There is, therefore, no substance, prima facie, in the contention that the extended period of limitation could not have been invoked in this case. “ 10. In view of the proviso to Section 28(1) of Customs Act, 1962 as also observed by the Tribunal in the case referred supra it is proved that the appellant cannot be absolved of the charges levelled in the show cause notice. 11. In the context of the above discussions on the basis of facts and evidences and considering various judgments and orders on this issue, we find that the charges levelled against the appellants stand proved. We therefore uphold the Order-in-Original issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla and reject the appeals filed by the appellants. (Pronounced in Court on 18-1-2012)
-
2012 (1) TMI 78
Writ petition filed to seek an order in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondents to release the containers to the petitioner - shipping company - 40 containers having 20,000 bags of MOP of Fertilizer Grade of customer seized by the Customs Authorities - petitioner is pressing for release of containers after unloading the goods contained therein - Additional Commissioner (Customs) vide order dated 11.10.2010 had asked the Container Corporation of India Ltd, Noida to keep seized goods in the warehous in safe custody and release the containers to the concerned shipping line – Held that:- Additional Commissioner (Customs) should take appropriate steps for keeping the seized goods in the safe custody and for releasing the 40 containers to the petitioner for which the Court thinks that period of one month would be reasonable as more than a year have passed since letter dated 11.10.2010. Further, release of containers should not be taken to mean that the petitioner has been absolved of its liability if any under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 or any other enactment, in case the authorities decide to take any action.
-
2012 (1) TMI 70
Unlawful import of the gold - offences punishable u/s 135(1)(a) and 132 of the Customs Act – matter relates to year 1989 - petitioner has already undergone sentence for more than one month – Held that:- The instant case is of economic offence in the prospective. Therefore, while maintaining the conviction, the order dated 21.3.2003 is modified to the extent already undergone, accordingly he is released on the sentence already undergone. The criminal Revision Petition 1037/2003 is partially allowed, as prayed.
-
2012 (1) TMI 56
Power of Commissioner(Appeals) to remand the matter u/s 122A of the Customs Act, 1962 - refund claim – Held that:- The power to remand the matter is specifically withdrawn u/s 122(A) of the Customs Act, 1962 and it is also upheld in case of Mil India Ltd. vs. CCE (2007 - TMI - 1196 - Supreme Court Of India). Thus, the impugned order is not sustainable. It is found that claim of refund was rejected by the adjudicating authority and documents produced before the Commissioner (Appeals) requires verification. Therefore, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority who will decide the matter afresh after taking into consideration the documents produced by the respondent. Appeal is disposed of by way of remand.
-
2012 (1) TMI 31
Whether claim of refund arising out of final assessment to be made vide an application u/s 27 or the same has to be refunded immediately u/s 18 not requiring assessee to move an application – bill of entries of import were provisionally assessed on 24.08.98 & 02.02.99 and duty was paid – refund arised on final assessment on 21.06.99, 15.06.99 – whether clause of unjust enrichment u/s 27(2) would be applicable - Held that:- The assessee has paid provisional duty which gets reduced on final assessment. The assessee, therefore, becomes entitled to refund which is payable in terms of Rule 9B of the Excise Act, 1944 or Section 18 of the Act. For refund on this account, no application is required to be filed u/s 27 of the Act and therefore, sub-Section (2) relating to unjust enrichment is not applicable. Further, insertions vide sub-sections (3), (4) and (5) to Section 18 are effective from 13.07.06 and obviously are not applicable to the case in hand as they do not have retrospective effect. - Decided in favor of assessee.
|
