Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 32743 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 (3) TMI 1219
Suspension of CHA License - mis-description of the goods or the erroneous classification of the goods - By the judgment and order impugned dated December 15, 2017, the writ petition was allowed since the very basis of the order of suspension had been destroyed upon the order of adjudication of September 12, 2017 being set aside qua the first respondent by the appellate order of October 26, 2017 - HELD THAT:- As of date, the prejudice caused by the original order of adjudication of September 12, 2017 has been wiped clean as against the agent. In such scenario, no reasonable authority could have suspended the licence of the agent or instituted proceedings therefor without the order dated October 26, 2017 being challenged or without first having such order annulled. At any rate, the entire issue has now been resolved and at the level of the ....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1218
Seeking quashing FIR - foreign made liquor and beer - Offence punishable under Sections 175, 176 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - it is alleged that the present applicants though were demanded to furnish the document, record, pass permit regarding foreign made liquor and beer, they did not give the same and also obstructed the investigation - HELD THAT:- since the bonded warehouse was situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Customs Department and the Central Government, without obtaining prior permission of the Customs Department or the Central Government, the police has no authority to seal or to carry out any search & seizure procedure. If any offence is found to be committed, at the most, the police can request for the same to the Department or to the Central Government. The police has no authority to carry out ....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1217
Smuggling - Gold Bars - acquittal of accused - offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 85 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 - HELD THAT:- The trial court has held that the accused no.12 is entitled to acquittal as he is arraigned only because of the confessional statement of the co-accused. The trial court in the impugned judgment has placed reliance on the aforesaid judgment and in the considered opinion of this Court, such reliance cannot be said to be misplaced, which is rendered in the case of the co-accused. The present accused no.14 has only been arraigned because of the statement of the co-accused no.12, who has been acquitted by the trial court - The confession recorded of the accused no.1 vide Exh.100 reveals that the same does not meet with the parameters of Section 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It is also the....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1159
Detention of goods - levy of Anti-Dumping Duty - non-finalization of provisional assessment - HELD THAT:- There would be no useful purpose in seeking counter or keeping the writ petition pending, in view of the notification dated 14.06.2017 and corrigendum dated 25.01.2019 which is co-relating to the name of the exporter/producer in the invoices. The 2nd respondent to take decision on the series of representations referred to Ext.P10 to P16 in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners - Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (3) TMI 1158
Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 - rejection on the ground of unjust enrichment - CBEC Circular No.6/2008-Cus dated 28.04.2008 and Circular No.18/2010-Cus dated 08.07.2010 - HELD THAT:- As per the Circular dated 28.04.2008, a certificate issued by the statutory auditor who certifies the annual accounts of the importer, that the burden of 4% SED has not been passed on by the importer to the buyer was sufficient for satisfying the principals of unjust-enrichment. Such requirement was fulfilled by the appellant and therefore the present ground are in violation of circular No.6/2008-Cus. It is repeatedly held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and other Judicial Authorities that CBEC circulars are binding on the departmental offices, thus inspite of clear instructions revenue has preferred this appeal in violation of said instruction in circular dated 28.04.2008 and by doing so revenue has wasted time of this court. Application of Revenue dismissed.
- 2020 (3) TMI 1067
Facility of paying terminal handing charges and other charges of the port terminal directly to the terminal operators instead of shifting through the Shipping Lines - Allegation that impugned SCN issued without taking into consideration the pre-negotiated contracts already entered between the first petitioner's members and clients and without considering that it has no locus and/or authority for payment of the charges - HELD THAT:- On a perusal of the provisions of 141(2) of the Customs Act, no doubt certain procedure is being prescribed with regard to storage and arrival of the consignment but the argument that the notice having been issued without jurisdiction is not able to cut eyes on plain and simple reading of the provisions of Section 143AA inserted with effect from 29th of March 2018. On a perusal of the provision of section 1....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1066
Denial of MEIS benefit - denial of benefit on the ground that the writ petitioners have omitted to check the Box stating 'Yes', indicating their intention to avail reward under the Scheme, in the specific Box provided in the software intended for uploading details to the web portal of the Central Government - HELD THAT:- Even if there exists no claim for the benefit under the MEIS, naturally there will be physical verification with respect to the goods consigned by the exporter. Therefore the details of the shipping as well as the necessary verification preceding the export were already done at that time would clearly indicate the identity of the goods exported. If the identity of the goods exported would reveal that the goods exported are those goods with respect to which the benefit under MEIS is allowable, there is no necessity....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1065
Maintainability of appeal - appeal was dismissed on 22nd August 2017 on the ground that they had failed to re-export the re-imported goods in accordance with the notification no. 158/95-CUS dated 14th November 1995 - HELD THAT:- According to the tribunal, the preventive officer had certified compliance when it ought to have been done by the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, this alleged compliance with the condition was suspect before the tribunal. This is indicative of foul play - This Court is not empowered to reappraise these facts in this jurisdiction. There is no perversity in such finding. It is a plausible one. Appeal dismissed.
- 2020 (3) TMI 1064
Territorial Jurisdiction - transfer of appeal from the South Zonal Bench of Appellate Tribunal at Karnataka to the West Zonal Bench of Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai - HELD THAT:- As far as the relief of the petitioner for transfer of the appeal from CESTAT at Bangaluru to Mumbai is concerned, the same cannot be accepted by this Court as this court do not have any jurisdiction to pass such order. At this stage, the learned counsel submits that he would not press this prayer but would make an appropriate application to the Appellate Tribunal purportedly under sub-section 6 of Section 129(C) of the Customs Act, 1962. Directions to not to hear the appeal by the Technical member whose appointment was challenged by the Advocate of the petitioner in the honourable Supreme Court - HELD THAT:- Not only the law of equity but the interest of justice ....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1063
Permission to petitioner or persons claiming under it to destuff the cargo from the containers - refrain and desist from demanding, collecting or in any way recovering or appropriating' container detention charges' and 'ground rent' or any other charges - HELD THAT:- It is yet to be decided whether the definition of the importer has to be strictly interpreted in the manner as attempted to be put across at this stage when the matter has been referred to a larger bench. This court cannot change the terms and conditions of the contract and supplement the same as has been attempted to be done. Petition dismissed.
- 2020 (3) TMI 1062
Revocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - denial of the procedural right of the licensee in enquiry proceedings - regulation 17(4) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulation, 2018 - HELD THAT:- The manner in which the enquiry report has discarded the request of cross-examination received from the notice is not in conformity with regulation 17 of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. It was incorrect on his part to have come to the conclusion that the statements recorded therein, which is perceptible as the foundation of the show-cause notice, did not merit being subjected to the test of cross-examination. Considering the nature of defence offered in reply to the show-cause notice, the inference of substitution should have been permitted for ascertainment in the enquiry proceedings. This breach of responsibility ....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1013
Imposition of penalty u/s 144(iii) and Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 - grievance on the part of the petitioner is that no readjudication has taken place and after 8 years of such order by CESTAT, the Commissioner of Customs, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad has issued letter and once again has issued show cause notice for readjudication of the matter, which was scheduled to be heard on 18.02.2020 - HELD THAT:- Noticing the fact that these petitions are preferred against the show cause notice relying on the ratio rendered in case of SIDDHI VINAYAK SYNTEX PVT LTD. VERSUS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & 2 [2017 (3) TMI 1534 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], petitioner may always place the very authority into service before the concerned authority. The petitioner has directly approached this Court against the show cause notice raising all contentions in these petitions. When efficacious remedy in alternative is available, this Court had not enter into the merits of the matters. Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (3) TMI 1012
Refund of Terminal Excise Duty (TED) - Rejection of refund contending that as supplies against ICB are ab initio exempted from payment of excise duty, the same are ineligible for refund - applicability of relevant FTP 2009-14. HELD THAT:- By virtue of the notification No. 4 dated 18th April, 2013, a condition was incorporated stipulating that categories of supplies which are exempt ab initio would not be eligible to receive refund of TED. In the present case, the supplies were made during the period from 15th December, 2009 to 10th February, 2011 and thus during the relevant period, there was no such condition in the FTP. It may also be noted that the aforenoted notification is substantive and not clarificatory and therefore cannot be applied retrospectively. Thus, even in this situation, in our view, the petitioner is entitled to refund ....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1011
Valuation - assessable value of imported goods - Aluminium scrap - rejection of declared value - HELD THAT:- Reliance placed in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX, NOIDA VERSUS M/S. SANJIVANI NON-FERROUS TRADING PVT. LTD. [2018 (12) TMI 738 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that The Tribunal has clearly mentioned that this declared price could be rejected only with cogent reasons by undertaking the exercise as to on what basis the Assessing Authority could hold that the paid price was not the sole consideration of the transaction value. Since there is no such exercise done by the Assessing Authority to reject the price declared in the Bills of Entry, Order-in-Original was, therefore, clearly erroneous. Inasmuch as, the Appellate Authority has relied upon the Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in the case....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1010
Smuggling - Pharmaceutical Bulk Drugs (PBD) - Miglitol - Mifepristone - Ethynal Estradiol - prohibited goods or not - demand based on various statements - retraction of statements - onus to prove - Circular No. 95/2003-Cus dated 06.11.2003 - Confiscation of sale proceeds of smuggled goods - penalty - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The standard of proof in a case like this would obviously different from other cases. When Shri Bavishi himself has agreed about the smuggling activity in general and was corroborated by others and when they could not produce any evidence of legal procurement, it has to be construed that the department has discharged its burden and thus, we have no hesitation in concluding that the goods are smuggled in nature and accordingly the provisions of Section 11(d) and (l) of Customs Act, 1962 are attracted....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1009
Maintainability of appeal - compliance of pre-deposit - section 129E of CA - Valuation - inclusion of royalty in the assessable value of imports - HELD THAT:- There can be no order for recovery of duties of Customs on past imports that were finally assessed without recourse to Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962. Should that eventuality occur, the ‘proper officer’ would, doubtlessly, issue an order quantifying the demand after following the procedure laid down in law. That could be a cause of grievance and any appeal therefrom, in compliance with Section 129E of Customs Act, 1962, could be entertained by the first, or subsequent, appellate authorities. The appellant is not aware of any action initiated on the prospective ruling on assessments of future imports, whether provisional or final. In Customs (Finalisation of Provisional ....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 929
Maintainability of appeal - availability of an alternate remedy - final assessment is yet to be completed - HELD THAT:- The Division Bench of this Court in the case of MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2010 (3) TMI 300 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has stressed upon the Tribunal the need to give deference to the decisions of its co-ordinate benches - Since the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal as premature and that prima facie we find that in identical circumstances the Tribunal has taken a different view, we are inclined to entertain this petition, more particularly in the law laid down by this Court in the case of Mercedes India Ltd. However, before concluding finally on the issue, we find that it will be appropriate to let the Tribunal examine the above cited decisions rendered by the co-ordinate benches and then take an info....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 928
Validity of Rule 2(vi)(a) made vide Notification dated 1st March, 2019 - vires of Section 1(2) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - HELD THAT:- The writ-applicant has to pay the ground rent, detention charges, demurrage charges etc. In such circumstances, a request is made that the writ-applicant may be permitted to atleast shift the 05 containers from the Mundra Port to his Industrial Unit of course subject to the condition that the writ-applicant shall not utilize the goods in any manner till the final adjudication of this litigation. Let Notice be issued to the respondents, returnable on 30/01/2020.
- 2020 (3) TMI 927
Smuggling - Gold - confiscation of vehicle - HELD THAT:- It can very well be seen that it was based on the affidavit of the Commissioner of Customs that the respondent herein had withdrawn the writ petition and had approached the Learned Magistrate. There is no merits in the submission of the Learned standing counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order passed by the Learned Magistrate is illegal. The respondent cannot be made to run from pillar to post to get his vehicle released. The petitioner cannot be permitted to take vacillating stands before this Court to harass the respondent. Petition dismissed.
- 2020 (3) TMI 926
Smuggling - Gold - discharge of onus under Section 123 of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- The appellant, Mr. Dinesh Bansal, who was in possession of the 59 gold bars, from the very time of interception and seizure, in his statement recorded under Section 108, soon thereafter, he has stated that he has purchased the gold bars from M/s.Lawat Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur on the same day. This fact has been corroborated by Shri Suresh Soni, Managing Director of M/s.Lawat Jewellers Pvt. Ltd., recorded on the very next day i.e. 11.09.2002 before S.I.O., DRI, wherein he affirmed having sold the 59 gold bars in question to the appellant, Shri Dinesh Bansal also produced the invoices. He also stated that the gold bars were delivered by their employee, Shri Parmeshwar in the premises of the bank itself (when M/s. Lawat Jewellers took delivery of 150 g....... + More