Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases Customs
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

Customs - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 28532 Records

  • 2017 (12) TMI 676 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Adani Ports And Special Economic Zone Limited And 1 Versus Union of India And 2

    Exemption from payment of deployment of staff - cost recovery charges - Circular dated 10.04.2013. - Held that - the Government of India, issued a circular providing for exemption from payment of cost recovery charges by the custodians of the ports subject to certain conditions. The basic condition was of satisfying the basic performance norms of minimum cargo and documents handled during a certain period. Such norms would show that for a set up ....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 628 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    M/s. Shri Ram Trading Company Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, The Deputy Commissioner of Customs

    Provisional Release of goods - Section 110 (A) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - The factual matrix of the present case appears to be not in dispute, as the allegation was not pertaining to mis disclaration of the nature of the goods, but with regard to retail selling price of the products. Thus, if ultimately, on adjudication, it is found that that the retail selling price declared by the petitioner, in the Bill of Entry is lower than the a....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 624 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    M/s. Blessing Cargo Care Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs

    Suspension of CHA License - Regulation 19(2) of the Customs Broker Licencing Regulation 2013 (CBLR) - the allegation against the petitioner in the instant case is that they have contravened Regulation 11(d) & Regulation 11(e). In as much as the petitioner did not advice their client to comply with the provisions of the Act and failed to exercise due diligence to ascertain the correctness of the information and even assuming ultimately, an ord....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 616 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    Commissioner of Customs, (Import) , Chennai Versus M/s. Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd.

    Quantum of redemption fine and penalty - Import of vehicle - Department was of the view that necessary Type Approval Certificate have not been produced and the conditions have not been complied with - Held that - the commissioner has observed that substantial part of the conditions in Sl. No. 2 of ITC (HS) Policy to Chapter 87 has been complied and only the conditions (b) and (c) of the said policy have not been complied. There is no dispute that....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 564 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    Ruchi Infrastructure Limited Versus Government of India & 1

    Effective date of notification - petitioner has prayed for a declaration that the Notification No. 43 of 2010 dated 09.04.2010 granting the exempt from payment of customs duty came to withdrawn become effective only from 20.04.2010 and not earlier and therefore, cannot be applied to the shipping bills of the petitioner for which let orders were issued by the authorities before such date. - Held that - it is an admitted position that the shipping ....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 563 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    Macnair Exports Pvt. Ltd., H.R. Bhatt, Shri Firoz Hajiani Versus Commissioner of Customs (EP) , Mumbai

    DEEC Scheme - Appellant falsely claimed that M/s Watan Tanning Industries Pvt. Ltd., (WTIPL), was supporting manufacturer of the appellant making use of the imports made by it. When investigation was made, WTIPL was found to be non-existent - Held that - Appellant no where brought out existence of any machinery or infrastructure facility of its own carrying out manufacturing activity. Nor it proved existence of manufacturing facility of supportin....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 513 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

    Smt Siva Suma latha Ranga Reddy (Distt) , Smt Masetty Krishna Kumari, Smt Rudrangi Radhika Versus Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad

    Smuggling - Gold Strip (Vaddanam) worn on their waist - It was alleged that the Appellants attempted to smuggle the same and thus the impugned goods are liable for confiscation - Baggage Rules - Held that - the Appellants were wearing the gold strips i.e Vaddanam on their waist and the same was not carried by them in their baggage. However the same was not disclosed to the officers and after enquiry by the officers the same was revealed to the of....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 512 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD

    M/s Gujarat Ambuja Export Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs, Jamnagar

    100 EOU - Conversion of shipping bills - free-shipping bill into DEPB shipping bill - Held that - conversion of free shipping bill into DEPB shipping bills, through amendment as provided under Sec. 149 of CA,1962, is inadmissible and has been rightly rejected by the authorities below - reliance placed in the case of Arise Exports, Trident Creation Versus C.C., Ahmedabad 2017 (8) TMI 145 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD - appeal dismissed - decided against appe....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 511 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    M/s Oriental Trimex Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida

    Benefit of N/N. 4/2006 - Classification of imported goods - Polished Marble Slabs - classified under CTH 68 02 2110 or under CTH 680221 90? - Held that - the notification mentions only 6802 2110 and does not mention 6802 2190 - vide Circular No. DOF. No. 334/03/2012-TRU, dated 16.03.2012 the Board has clarified that Polished Marble Slabs are classifiable under CTH 6802 2190 and the benefit of Notification No.4/2006-CE, dated 01.03.2006 is availab....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 463 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s Vardhman Textiles Limited, M/s Arvind Limited, M/s Indorama Industries Limited, M/s Hyosung Vietnam Co. Ltd., M/s Hyosung Corporation Versus Union of India/DA

    ADD - Elastomeric Filament Yarn (EFY) - import from China PR, Korea, Taiwan and Vietnam (subject countries) - It is claimed that there is no injury to the DI and there is no reason for imposition of AD duty. The thrust of the argument is that the DI is doing well and is having good commercial return and there is no apparent injury caused to the DI due to import of the subject goods - Held that - There is no ground to support the claim of the appe....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 462 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Devashish Polymers Private Limited Versus Union of India & Ors.

    Exemption from customs and excise duty - continuation of exemption under GST regime - continuation of exemption until the validity of registration granted to the petitioner s R&D centre - Held that - This Court is prima facie of the view that an exemption cannot be claimed as a matter of right in terms of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India v. Parameswaran Match Works 1974 (11) TMI 40 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . - The petitioner cl....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 461 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    M/s. Century Rayon Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Imports)

    Refund claim - duty paid under protest - claim of the appellant on the basis of proviso to subsection (1) of Section 20 of the said Act was that the benefit of the proviso will be available and no duty will be payable on reimported goods - It is alleged that in absence of the failure to establish identity at the time of importation, benefit of the proviso could not be made available - Held that - Sub-Section (1) of Section 20 lays down the rule w....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 460 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    Shri Pramod Kumar Versus C.C., New Delhi

    Classification of goods - unbranded Micro SD Cards - classified under CTH 85235220 or CTH 85235100? - Held that - the CBEC vide Circular dated 20.07.2016 has also clarified that the benefit of the said notification is extendable to Micro/Mini SD cards classified under CTH 85235100. Thus, it is apparent that change in classification of subject goods by the Department will not create any additional Basic Customs Duty liability for the appellant - t....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 459 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s. Jeevan Jain Versus C.C., New Delhi (Prev.)

    Penalty u/s 114AA of the CA, 1962 - imposition of penalty on the ground that the premises of the appellant showed that the goods were clandestinely diverted by him to M/s. ESS ESS Traders, which were imported under the cover of Bill of Entry dated 29.11.2012 - Held that - it cannot be said that the appellant had provided certain false or incorrect material in relation to such import. Further, the Department was also in doubt as to the persons, wh....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 458 - CESTAT HYDERABAD

    Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Guntur Versus M/s Vikas Agro Products

    Classification of goods - micronutrients - Department has a taken a view that the goods merit classification under CETH 38.08 as Plant Growth Regulator, whereas the respondents claim classification as other fertilizers under CETH 31.05 - Held that - the issue has already been settled in the case of CCE & ST, Hyderabad-IV Versus M/s Aries Agrovet Industries Ltd 2017 (7) TMI 289 - CESTAT HYDERABAD , where it was held that In view of presence of....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 457 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    Mr. Rajeev Banga Versus CC, (Prev.) , New Delhi

    Penalty - smuggling of Ketamine concealing into the tobacco packet - Held that - it is crystal clear that it is a case of the drugs export, Ketamine which is injurious to the health. It is subject matter of the Narcotics and Drugs Act. The main offender, as usual, absconded so the appellant cannot escape from his liability especially when he has confessed that he knows the CFA exporter and the item to be exported. The Commissioner (Appeals) has a....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 456 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s. S.T. Infosolution Pvt. Ltd. Versus CC, New Delhi

    Valuation - Assessing Authorities entertained a view that the goods are not valued correctly and accordingly, proceeded to re-determine the value in terms of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 - Held that - Admittedly, the value declared by the appellant was rejected and enhanced to US 10 per piece on the sole ground that there were certain imports of similar goods with this value. Neither the basis of NIDB data with full description and specification....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 405 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT

    M/s Neno Crystals Versus Union of India & 2

    Valuation of imported goods - glass beads of a particular kind called Chaton - Department demanded higher import price - Held that - Since the issue is a recurring one and one which requires early and pragmatic resolution so that the neither the petitioner is unduly harmed nor the interest of the Revenue is prejudiced, in view of the facts noted above, it would be in interest of both the sides, that CESTAT before which said Tax Appeal No. 11645/2....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 404 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    The Commissioner of Customs Versus M/s. Rajeshwari Graphix

    Import of second hand photocopiers during 2004 and 2005 - whether the Commissioner (Appeals) and Appellate Tribunal are correct in holding that the second-hand photocopiers imported and meant for service sector are Capital goods free importable and not Consumer goods? - Held that - reliance placed in the case of Atul Commodities Pvt. Ltd. & Ors. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Cochin-9 2009 (2) TMI 18 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that ....... + More


  • 2017 (12) TMI 403 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH

    Commissioner of Customs, Amritsar Versus M/s. Maya Enterprises Shri Anil Kumar, Proprietor

    Mis-declaration of imported goods - undervaluation - palm acid oil, palm fatty acid distillate and palm stearin - whether there was any misdeclaration of the description of imported goods? - Held that - there was a cross-examination of the Chemical Examiner as well as the Joint Director. The samples of the goods were also got tested by the Revenue from Sri Ram Institute for Industrial Research, New Delhi. We find that the ld. Commissioner has cor....... + More


1........
 
 
 
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version