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 Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner Other
Citation	--Year-- 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 32405 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 & Decision etc.

• 2020 (1) TMI 951
  
  Advance Licence Scheme - clearance of the consignment free of import duty in terms of Customs N/Ns. 203/1992, 204/1992, both dated 19.05.1992 - HELD THAT:- The order of the High Court is completely unsustainable. The entire consignment was imported under one advance licence issued to the petitioner prior to 19.05.1992. The fortuitous circumstance that part of the consignment was actually imported prior to 25.11.1993 and the rest subsequent thereto is hardly relevant in view of the clarificatory notification dated 18.03.1994 that the exemption would continue to apply subject to fulfilment of the specified terms and conditions. It is not the case of the respondents that the consignments imported subsequently did not meet the terms and conditions of the exemption. It is unfortunate that the High Court failed to follow its own orders in a sim....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 950
  
  Waiver of penalty u/s 114AA of CA - reduction in the quantum of penalty imposed u/s 112(a) of CA - abetment of the smuggling activities - maintainability of appeal - HELD THAT:- As a matter of fact, no question of law arises from the order of the learned Tribunal, much less substantial question of law, which is the requirement for maintaining the appeal under Section 130 of the Act. The matter relates to imposition, deletion or reduction of the amount of penalty are within the discretion of the fact finding bodies and the learned Tribunal being the highest fact finding body, in its fair exercise of discretion, has reduced the penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act while setting aside the penalty under Section 114AA of the Act. The activity of the import of the prohibited goods by covering them with the help of some goods, which are decla....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 949
  
  Imposition of penalty on CHA u/s 112(1)/(b) of the Customs Act - misdeclaration of quantum of imported goods - Synthetic Diamond Powder - allegation that the valuation of Synthetic Diamond Powder is based on the unit of ‘carats’, thus by declaring less number of carats, the importer had declared only 1/5th of the quantity and thus undervalued the consignment to the extent of 80% of the quantity declared in the aforesaid two Bills of Entry. HELD THAT:- There is no allegation of any connivance on the part of the appellant-CHA with the importer. Further, in the statement recorded the appellant-CHA have stated that it was mistake on his part but he was not knowing about the no. of carats in 1 Kg., but the Bs/E were filed as per Carats shown in Invoices and same were appraised by the group as such and he never questioned about this....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 948
  
  Classification of imported goods - whether the Palm Kernel Acid Oil or Palm Kernel Fatty Acid - challenge to valuation adopted by the adjudicating authority for the imported consignment - re-test of sample denied - HELD THAT:- There is considerable force in the submission made by the learned Advocate regarding denial of the re-test of the product imported - also, the test report has not indicated the various chemical parameters prescribed for the test of the imported goods in terms of fatty acid contents moisture and impurities and iodine and saponification value. The appellant has produced the test report from the supplier of the goods which clearly indicated that the imported consignment is having the characteristics of Palm Kernel Acid Oil and not Palm Kernel Fatty Acid, as held by the Revenue based on the CRCL report - Further, the va....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 947
  
  Confiscation - imposition of redemption fine and penalty - classification of goods - heavy melting scrap - legality of reports of the Chartered Engineers for change of classification - Whether the Chartered Engineer report is acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case or not? - HELD THAT:- The Chartered Engineer who has examined the goods are not metallurgical engineer and the reports were based on visual examination without any market inquiry, therefore, the reports provided by the Chartered Engineers are not acceptable - as Chartered Engineers who were not metallurgical engineer and given the reports without market survey on visual examination cannot be relied upon. Therefore, the reports given by the Chartered Engineers are not acceptable for assessment of the bills of entry in question. Whether the classification of the imp....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 946
  
  Revocation of CHA license - imposition of penalty - it was alleged that the appellant was having the knowledge about the imported consignment to be mis-declared with respect to its description and value - section 11E of CBLR, 2013 - HELD THAT:- The charge against the appellant is that they have not personally verified the existence of the importer and also failed to properly verify IFC Code and the actual person behind this import. Not only that, the appellant has got the two similar consignments in past. The SCN issued to the appellant does not explain as to which of the specific provisions of Section 11E has been violated by the appellant. However, in the SCN it is mentioned that the appellant failed in its duty of customs broker by not advising his client to comply with the provision of the Customs Act and to verify antecedent of impor....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 907
  
  Writ of Habeas Corpus - Release of detained petitioner - detention sought on the ground that the detention of petitioner in custody is illegal and the same is violative of Article 14, 21 and 22 of the Constitution of India - smuggling - HELD THAT:- In view of the serious allegations levelled against the petitioner about his involvement in the multi crore scam of the smuggling of gold in which the petitioner has actively participated, we are not inclined to exercise our discretion in favour of the petitioner for issuance of Writ of Habeas Corpus. The petitioner has efficacious remedy of filing the Bail Application and seeking regular bail before the competent court. Even if the remand order is illegal, which is passed mechanically in a cavalier fashion, still the remedy of the Writ of Habeas Corpus cannot be said to be an efficacious remed....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 906
  
  Vires of Policy Circular Nos.6 and 35 - denial of benefit of the DEPB or Duty Drawback - HELD THAT:- There is no merit in the present intra Court Appeals filed by the Revenue and the view of the learned Single Judge deserves to be upheld - We are of the opinion that the Circulars like Circular No.74/1999-Cus dated 05.11.1999 as well as the Circular No.31/2000-Cus dated 20.04.2000 could not have restricted or denied the benefit of Drawback or DEPB if such manufacturing was done by 100% EOU Units and then exports were made by such 100% EOUs. The denial of benefit to the Assessee under the guise of a clarification for which, no power was bestowed on the Central Board. More so, if such Circulars come in direct conflict with clear statutory provisions of law or Import Export Policy having statutory character. Appeal dismissed.

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 905
  
  Levy of penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act - Penalty on CEO for abetment - misdeclaration of transaction value as well as retail sales price (RSP) of confectionary items - HELD THAT:- The issue of jurisdiction of Customs Act and its application to the appellant is primarily challenged in the present appeal, besides the legality of the Order of the Commissioner. Though the issue appears to be small it has wide ramifications. No Municipal law can ever be extended beyond the territorial boundaries of a country including its continental self and exclusive economic zone, whether or not there is express provision in the Act or statute to stretch the same beyond the country’s territory since the same would amount to encroachment upon the territorial authority of other State. It is therefore, defined in the Statute of the country that th....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 850
  
  Benefit of exemption N/N. 64/88-Cus dated 1st March 1988 - import of ‘Theratron-Phoenix Cobalt-60 (electro therapeutic apparatus)’ - HELD THAT:- There are no reason to interfere with the impugned order - Appeal dismissed.

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 848
  
  Classification of goods - Kapok - whether Kapok could not be classified under heading 53.05 or not? - HELD THAT:- There is no finding in the order of the Tribunal as to whether the observations of the Commissioner (Appeals) that Kapok could not be classified under heading 53.05, are correct or not. No appeal was filed by the Respondents on this count. The question would now remain whether the Kapok could be classified under heading 14.04. The argument that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the appeal can never look into a different entry is belied by the proviso to Section 128A of the Act. However, a procedure is laid down in the said proviso. A prior notice and time limit is contemplated. The contention of the Appellant that such a notice, even if it is issued, was beyond time even on the date the Commissioner passed the order can be made by....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 846
  
  Imposition of redemption fine - section 125 of CA - goods in question have already been released in favour of the assessee on a bond - HELD THAT:- the mere fact that the goods were released on the bond being executed would not take away the power of the customs authorities to levy redemption fine. However, tribunal has recorded that, "It is also on record that the goods were not physically available for confiscation. Redemption fine was not to be imposed in lieu of confiscation of any goods where the goods are not physically available to be redeemed." The learned Tribunal has erred in holding that the cited case of the Hon'ble Supreme court in the case of WESTON COMPONENTS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI [2000 (1) TMI 45 - SC ORDER] referred is distinguishable. This observation written by hand by the learned M....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 840
  
  Benefit of Indirect Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016 - a discharge certificate was issued by the designated authority accepting the payment from the declarant as full and final settlement of the amounts due from the declarant - appeal were pending before Commissioner (Appeals) - Misdeclaration of imported goods - imported Shredded Stainless Steel Scrap Grade 304 - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the appellant filed a declaration before the authorized officer in terms of the Indirect Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016. In terms of the provisions of Section 214, an assessee is required to make a declaration before the designated authority. The said declaration has to be acknowledged and in terms of sub-section 4 of the said section, on receipt of proof of payment of tax interest and penalty under sub-section 3, the designated autho....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 813
  
  Condonation of delay of 87 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal - HELD THAT:- The delay is condoned. Prayer for withdrawal of appeal - HELD THAT:- The prayer of the Revenue is allowed and the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 768
  
  Smuggling - foreign marked gold bars - acquittal of accused - offence punishable under Section 135 (1) (b) read with Section 135 (1) (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 and under Section 8 (1) of Gold Control Act punishable under Section 85 (1) (ii) of the Gold (Control) Act, 1968 - cross-examination of witnesses. HELD THAT:- There is nothing on record to indicate that respondent no.1 was apprised of his rights under Section 102 and consequences thereof. For proving the offence under Section 135, prosecution must prima facie establish a case of legal seizure of contraband gold from the conscious possession of accused. For that purpose, at the outset, prosecution must prove that the seizure effected from the person of accused on 25th March 1985 at Kalbadevi Road, was legal. The provisions of Section 102 of The Customs Act, 1962 accord a protectio....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 767
  
  Smuggling - sale proceeds from sale of Gold Bars - Indian Currency - acquittal of accused - offence punishable under Section 135 (1) (A) and (B) read with Section 135 (1) (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 - compliance with the provisions of Section 102 of the said Act or not - reliability of statements - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the formalities to be followed under the provisions of Section 102 of the said Act have not been followed. Mr. Natarajan, in fairness, true to his role as an Officer of the Court, admitted that the requirements of Section 102 of the said Act have not been complied with and compliance with those requirements is mandatory - For proving the offence under Section 135 of the said Act, prosecution must prima facie establish the case of legal seizure. For that purpose, at the outset, prosecution must prove that the seizure effe....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 766
  
  Import of new aircraft - Benefit of N/N. 21/2002-cus dated 1.3.2002 as amended - Department got intelligence that the said aircraft had been imported for private use by the appellant under the guise of non scheduled operator (passenger permit) - Whether the appellant herein has violated condition no. 104 (under sl. No. 347 N) of notification no. 21/2002-Cus as amended by notification no. 61/2007-Cus while importing an aircraft vide B/E No. 218981 dated 21.05.2007 by not complying with the undertaking as was given to DGCA at the time of said import? HELD THAT:- The scheduled as well as non scheduled air transport services firm (whether for passenger or charter) are open to use by the members of public and as such stands distinguished from what can be called as private use of the aircraft. The another thing which distinguishes scheduled air....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 742
  
  Exemption from Customs Duty on Copper Concentrate to the extent of duty on the value of Gold and Silver contained in such Copper Concentrate - Denial of the benefit of N/N. 24/2011-Cus dated 01.03.2011 - denial of benefit of notification on the ground that the Assay Certificate of the Mining Company submitted at the time of provisional assessment is not co-relatable with the import documents submitted by the appellant. HELD THAT:- The appellants have produced a provisional assay certificate from the mining Company at the time of import. They have finalized the price with the supplier who is not a mine - Tribunal in the appellants own case HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS-AHMEDABAD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS-AHMEDABAD, HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. [2015 (3) TMI 948 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] has held that For a feasible solution ....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 717
  
  Refund of differential duty - Benefit of N/N. 69/2011-Cus dated 29.07.2011 - rejection on the ground that the bill of entry has not been challenged - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the appellant was eligible for the exemption notification but they have not claimed the same in the bill of entry and paid excess duty. Thereafter, they filed the refund claim without challenging the bills of entry under which the duty was paid. It has now been decided by the Larger bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ITC LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA -IV [2019 (9) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT] that no refund can be claimed once assessment is finalised without challenging the assessment even if such assessment was done under self assessment procedure. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 682
  
  Smuggling - Gold - confiscation of seized goods alongwith penalty - process of adjudication of the Show Cause Notice dated 29th August, 2017 has already been started, which is yet to be completed - HELD THAT:- This writ petition has been preferred for correction of methodology of adjudication, which we are not going to interfere at all because it is left on the discretion and wisdom of the respondents and with the expectation that they shall follow the law, rules, regulations and Government policy as applicable to the facts of the case. Petition disposed off.

---