Home Case Index All Cases Customs This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property/ Transactions Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Customs - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 35212 Records

More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote and Decision etc.

• 2022 (6) TMI 1265
  
  Import of Gold - bonafide baggage or not - cause of action has arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court or not - respondents submits that the writ petition is infructuous inasmuch as the petitioner has accepted the order of the first respondent and has paid the redemption fine and penalty for re-export of the imported goods - HELD THAT:- In KUSUM INGOTS & ALLOYS LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2004 (4) TMI 342 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Supreme Court held that “When an order, however, is passed by a Court or Tribunal or an executive authority whether under provisions of a statute or otherwise, a part of cause of action arises at that place. Even in a given case, when the original authority is constituted at one place and the appellate authority is constituted at another, a writ petition would be maintainable at both the....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (6) TMI 1264
  
  Appearance before the concerned officer - petitioner company says that, without any prejudice to the rights and contentions of the petitioner company, the persons employed with it, who have requisite technical knowledge, along with one director, will appear before the concerned officer - HELD THAT:- The date, time and venue will be indicated by the concerned officer to the petitioner, via e-mail. A copy of the e-mail will also be sent to Ms Anjali Jha Manish - Application disposed off.

  ---

• 2022 (6) TMI 1263
  
  Exemption form Customs duty for goods imported for use in the manufacture of finished goods in the nature of PCB assemblies - benefit of N/N. 25/2002-Cus as amended by N/N. 8/2004-Cus dated 08.01.2004 - case of the department is that the exemption notification under the Sl. No. 11,29 & 57 of the table of the notification is applicable to only IT Industries whereas, the appellant’s factory is manufacturer of induction melting and heating furnace as well as induction welding equipment, and therefore the benefit of exemption was denied - The appellant also submits that since the demand in the present case is in pursuance of the earlier order which has already been set aside by this tribunal hence, the appeal be allowed. HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the subject imported material are clearly specified in the table given in th....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (6) TMI 1231
  
  Violation of principles of natural justice - delay in adjudication of show cause notices should be attributed to petitioner or not - HELD THAT:- The petitioner having filed response to the show cause notices, the adjudicating authority should be given an opportunity to conclude the proceedings. Should petitioner wish to make any further reply to the show cause notice, the same shall be filed within one week from today - the adjudicating authority will adjudicate on the show cause notices and pass a detailed and well reasoned order within six weeks from today. Petition disposed off.

  ---

• 2022 (6) TMI 1230
  
  Seeking unconditional release of consignments - import of white whole Areca Nuts of Sri Lankan origin - HELD THAT:- In the course of investigation the samples were drawn and sent to Arecanut Research and Development Foundation, Mangalore by the customs authorities for determination of Country of Origin. The report dated 30th January 2020 issued by Arecanut Research and Development Foundation, Mangalore states that "it seems to be of white whole Areca Nuts of Sri Lankan origin. The Areca nut samples supplied are of poor quality and as much as 20% of nuts are infested with moulds and does not comply with BIS standards for Areca nut. They are neither fit for chewing nor consumption by humans”. There is no affidavit in rejoinder and Mr.Inderpal Singh Nirmale counsel for petitioner stated that petitioner has not checked the goods re....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (6) TMI 1229
  
  Rectification of mistake - error apparent on the face of record or not - import of induction cookers in the semi knocked down condition - mis-declaration of goods or not - MRP was declared in the bill of entry or not - demand of differential duty alongwith interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- In the proceedings before the Commissioner (Appeals) and CESTAT, the company has alone preferred the appeal and not the petitioner, but in the CESTAT order it has been referred as the petitioner and the company have preferred the appeal and thereafter, the appeal was allowed by setting aside the penalty imposed on the petitioner. Finding error apparent, the department has filed a petition and such reference of petitioner alone was deleted. In the CESTAT order, setting aside of penalty imposed has been accepted by the department and the department had n....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (6) TMI 1228
  
  Maintainability of appeal - appeal dismissed on the ground of non-compliance of the mandatory required as contained u/s129 (e) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The issue is already decided in the case of RAHUL RAJVAIDHYA VERSUS CUSTOMS CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX [2019 (10) TMI 227 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT] where it was held that as the mandatory requirement of per-deposit as provided u/s 129 (e) has not been fulfilled, the Tribunal was justified in dismissing the appeal. Following the above-mentioned order, the present appeal is also dismissed.

  ---

• 2022 (6) TMI 1227
  
  Classification of imported goods - goods declared as Polyester Bed Cover - the goods are Polyester Bed Cover or Polyester Fabric? - classifiable under Custom Tariff Heading 63041930 as declared by the Appellant or under Custom Tariff Heading 54075490 as claimed by revenue? - main contention of appellant is that department has not discharged the burden of proof of classifying the impugned goods under chapter 54 - applicability of case of MS SUNRISE TRADERS, JAI DURGA IMPEX, ALISHAN IMPEX, SATISH JINDAL, ADITYA LOOMTEX, TUSHAR TILAK, JMD TRADING CO, MOHIT SOIN, AJAY HIRALAL VIJ, JAI HANUMAN OVERSEAS, PANKAJ KUMAR KATARIA, PANKAJ KUMAR, SHREE SHYAM INTERNATIONAL AND TUSHAR GUPTA VERSUS C.C. -MUNDRA [2022 (1) TMI 468 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD]. HELD THAT:- In the relied upon order in the Textile Committee report, it was mentioned in the column of co....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (6) TMI 1226
  
  Demand of bank guarantee to the extent of 15% of the value of seized goods - provisional release order already passed - power of department to review an order passed under Section 110A - review of the order to the extent it requires the Appellant to furnish a bank guarantee of 15% of value of the seized goods - HELD THAT:- In the present case, once the provisional release order was passed, the Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad, had no jurisdiction under the Customs Act to review the earlier order dated 4th February 2022 granting provisional release to the goods imported vide the Bills of Entry impugned in the present case. The correct approach would have been for the Respondent to challenge the correctness of the said provisional release order before this Tribunal. Further, there have been no reasons provided in the ....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (6) TMI 1225
  
  Levy of penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Allegation of evasion of anti-dumping duty - mis-declaring the country of origin as Malaysia, instead of China - penalty imposed upon the appellants Jayesh Mehta and Harshad Vadodaria on the ground that appellants herein have aided and abetted the importer in importing the goods by way of mis-declaring the country of origin - validity of SCN - appellant points out that impugned order imposed penalty under section 112 (a) of the Act whereas show cause notice proposed penalty under section 112 (b) of the Act - appropriation of amounts deposited by or on behalf of company during investigation towards duty and interest liability - HELD THAT:- The appellants said role in relation to import of goods is not borne out of facts on record. Significantly, the case of the department of mis-declara....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (6) TMI 1224
  
  Refund claim - rejection of refund on the ground that the same was not deposited in the name of the Appellant - HELD THAT:- Having regard to the fact that proof of email reply fully acknowledged that demand draft was drawn with money transferred from the bank account of Appellant, it can be said without the slightest hesitation that the submission made by the Appellant before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) that has been recorded in para 5 of his Order-in-Appeal are true. The obvious reason for such wrong noting of draft in someone else’s name could be a clerical error and could be remanded at the Respondent-Department’s ends to facilitate refund of the disputed amount to the Appellant in compliance to the provision of refund available in the Customs Act, 1962 concerning refund. It is deemed proper to remand the matter b....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (6) TMI 1205
  
  Seeking provisional release of goods - Jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- The parties agree that the order under challenge passed by the CESTAT dated 10.05.2022 be quashed and set aside as the same is without jurisdiction. A further statement is made by the learned counsel for the respondent Mr. Motwani that against the order of provisional release dated 06.04.2022, the respondent shall file an appeal by 25.05.2022 under Section 128 if the Customs Act. On such appeal being filed, the Competent Authority shall decide the same within a period of 10 days from the date of filing of the same - Appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2022 (6) TMI 1189
  
  Seeking permission to re-export the goods - Unflavored Supari (Betelnut Product) - seeking issuance of Detention Certificate for waiver of demurrage and container detention charges - HELD THAT:- The respondent has no objection to submit himself for enquiry. As a matter of fact the investigation is going on and the respondent has already appeared before the investigation agency once. This Court is unable to find any reason to interfere with the order of learned Single Judge, which gives only simple direction to the appellants to complete the adjudication process one way or the other with an option to the respondent to re-export the goods back to the place from where the goods were imported. As pointed out by this Court earlier, this Court do not find any merit in the grievance expressed by learned counsel for the appellants. In the present....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (6) TMI 1142
  
  Time limitation of one year to claim refund of Special Additional Duty - N/N. 93/2008-Customs dated 01.08.2008 - Whether N/N. 102/2007-Customs dated 14.09.2007 and the amending Notification No.93/2008-Customs dated -01.08.2008 issued under sub-section (1) of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1962, have the standing and statutory backing to prescribe limitation for claiming refund? - HELD THAT:- This Court has taken a view in THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE VERSUS M/S. MOLEX INDIA PVT. LTD., [2021 (10) TMI 342 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] agreeing with the view taken by the Delhi High Court in SONY INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT], where it was held that Indisputably, in N/N.102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007, no time period was mentioned for claiming the refund under the said notification. ....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (6) TMI 1141
  
  Detention of goods - goods proposed to be exported under duty draw back scheme - levy of penalty - HELD THAT:- There are no merits in the present writ petition as far as the challenge to the impugned order is concerned as the petitioner has an alternate remedy. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. However, liberty given to file a statutory appeal before CESTAT, chennai within a period of sixty days from the date of receipt of copy of this order to the petitioner. The writ petition stands disposed off.

  ---

• 2022 (6) TMI 1140
  
  Mis-declaration of imported goods - Scania 310 Chassis - one complete amphibian bus body mounted on chassis - whether the said mis-classification was with some malafide intention or not? - Confiscation of imported goods - redemption fine - penalty - HELD THAT:- The appellant herein imported one amphibious bus body manufactured and supplied by M/s. Advanced Amphibious Design Inc. Honolulu mounted on Scania 310 chassis supplied by M/s. Scania CV AB Sweden claiming classification of goods under CTH 8901. The appellant had claimed the CTH 89019000 which pertains as per chapter Heading reads as “Ships, boats and floating structures” and further the explanatory notes to the said chapter heading clearly excludes Amphibious motor vehicles designed to travel over both land and certain tracks of water (swapms etc.) are classifiable as m....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (6) TMI 1139
  
  Refund claim of Special Additional Duty (SAD) - rejection on the ground of time limitation - refund claim has been rejected without issuing a Show Cause Notice or without granting an opportunity of personal hearing - HELD THAT:- It is clear from the findings recorded by the Adjudicating Authority that the appellant has filed the refund claim within the prescribed time limit of one year from the date of payment of duty, however, before a wrong forum. It is the settled position of law that when a refund claim is filed before a wrong forum, within the statutory time-limit, the date on which the claim was originally filed has to be taken as the date of filing of the refund claim. In the case of SUN PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2016 (8) TMI 1515 - DELHI HIGH COURT] a similar issue was considered. It was held that when ....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (6) TMI 1138
  
  Import of kid bikes - allegation that the goods do not conform to the BIS requirements - Confiscation of the entire goods with an option to redeem the goods for the purpose of re-export only - levy of penalty - HELD THAT:- From the narration of facts stated, it can be seen that out of 183 kids bikes, the department does not deny the identity of 157 kids bikes. So also, there is no dispute as to the brand of these 157 bikes. The dispute is with regard to the 26 nos. of kids bikes only. However, the authorities below have ordered for confiscation and directed to re-export the entire goods or for destruction of the same at the cost of the importer (appellant). The order for confiscation and re-export made in regard to 26 nos. of kids bikes does not require interference. From the records, it is seen that the goods were subjected to quality as....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (6) TMI 1094
  
  Seeking release of seized goods - Jurisdiction - violation of principles of natural justice - violation of articles 14 and 19(1)(g) of the Constitution of India and provisions of Customs Act, 1962, notifications thereof, and provisions of Foreign Trade Policy and allow the goods to be further exported - conduct of investigation against the petitioner - seeking defreezing of bank account of the petitioner - Section 110 of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- It is evident that if the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, he may seize such goods - Section 113 of the Customs Act mentions the instances when exportable goods can be confiscated. In the instant case, the seizure memo are not on record. However, the panchnama which has been placed on record along with the counteraffidavit s....... + More

  ---

• 2022 (6) TMI 1093
  
  Confiscation - Imposition of redemption fine and penalty - valuation of goods which are not requiring BIS certifications - Confiscation and allowing of redemption of goods to which BIS specifications are applicable, for the purposes of export. Valuation of goods which are not requiring BIS certifications and confiscation of the same and allowing to be redeemed - HELD THAT:- Valuation of the goods was made in arbitrary manner without giving any cogent reasons whatsoever. The lower authorities have also not adhered to the principles of natural justice. The revaluation of goods was done at the back of the importer. Though the original authority cursorily states that he has gone through the various the sequential Customs Rules for valuation, there is no evidence to that effect to indicate such diligent application of rules by the lower author....... + More

  ---

12345........ 1761