|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 58 Records
-
1997 (4) TMI 545 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... . Electricals Ltd. 1994 (73) E.L.T. 263 (S.C.) 1994 (6) SCC 149 , this appeal is dismissed. There will be no order as to costs.
-
1997 (4) TMI 542 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... , JJ. ORDER Appeal is dismissed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 533 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... basically based on the findings of fact and hence dismissed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 510 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... under any circumstances even though ex facie it appears that there is no liability of confiscation under the relevant prohibition of the Act and consequently there cannot be reasonable belief in respect thereof. 56. In the result the writ application succeeds. The impugned order of seizure is hereby quashed. Let a writ in the nature of certiorari be issued accordingly. 57. The respondents are directed to release the seized goods to the petitioner forthwith. Let a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued accordingly. 58. There will be no order as to costs. 59. Ld. Advocate for the respondents prays for stay of the operation of the order. After considering the submissions, I do not find any reason to stay the operation of this order as it has been found by this Court that the order of seizure was wholly arbitrary and against the provisions of the Act. 60. Certified copy/xerox certified copy of this order and judgment, if applied for being granted as expeditiously as possible.
-
1997 (4) TMI 502 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l act of manufacturing cannot be said to be the essence of the definition of the word 'manufacturer'. For instance, a person who supplies yarn to a handloom or powerloom owner for weaving cloth according to his specifications/design/pattern on payment of labour charges is a "manufacturer". We are, therefore, of the view that an exporter, like the petitioner who may not himself employ any labour for the purpose of manufacture of textiles and/or textile machinery being exported by him but gets these manufactured through an independent contractor or agent, would also fall within the purview of the Act. We may add that inclusion of the expression "exporters" in Section 12 of the Act by the Act 51 of 1973 also makes the legislative intent abundantly clear that the exporters are also covered under the Act. For the reasons aforesaid there is no merit in the petition and the same is accordingly dismissed with costs, which we quantify at ₹ 5,000.00 .
-
1997 (4) TMI 499 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... application for condonation of delay is dismissed. Consequently the Civil Appeal stands dismissed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 460 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Import of Waste paper - Mutilation of goods ... ... ... ... ..... ords, while goods imported can be used as scrap or as serviceable material, it should be open to the assessee who contends that the import was only for the use as scrap, to seek mutilation so that it can be used only as scrap and not as serviceable material. Setting aside the impugned order the Tribunal directed that the entire quantity of goods imported in these cases shall be mutilated by at the cost of the assessee and at such premises as the Collector may decide. The learned Counsel also refers to the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Swastic Woollen Industries 1990 (47) E.L.T. 216 (S.C.) . 7. emsp We have heard the submissions of both sides. We have gone through the case law cited and relied upon by the respondents. On careful consideration of the submissions made as indicated above and the case law cited in support of their submissions we do not see any legal infirmity in the impugned order and therefore we uphold the same. In the result the appeal is dismissed.
-
1997 (4) TMI 344 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Natural justice - Cross-examination - Smuggling ... ... ... ... ..... ul Agarwal and Anil Kumar Agarwal is concerned. I find that they had submitted their replies to the show cause notice. They were the co-noticees, their statements were corroborated by Shri Naveen Kumar Gupta and therefore, denial of permission of cross-examination of these persons has not led to miscarriage of justice. Looking to the facts and circumstances and the statements of the noticees, I find that absolute confiscation is too harsh a penalty. In the circumstances, I allow the redemption of silver weighing 12.136 kgs. recovered from Rahul Agarwal on payment of fine of Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees twenty thousand only) and for redemption of 12.783 kgs. of silver recovered from Anil Kumar Agarwal to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 21,000/- (Rupees twenty-one thousand only). The quantum of penalty is not considered too high, therefore, no interference is called for. 7. emsp The impugned order is modified to the extent stated above and the appeals are disposed of accordingly.
-
1997 (4) TMI 320 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... iece of these evidences relates to HDPE tape grades ldquo wide specification rdquo . In our view, therefore, none of these evidences can be strictly relied upon for the purpose of arriving at the value of goods under importation. We also observe that the fax messages relied upon by the lower authorities are not otherwise reliable for the discrepancies pointed out by the learned Consultant in view of the Supreme Court rsquo s judgment mentioned supra. We also observe that none of the authorities below has given any reasons as to why the evidences produced by the appellants in support of the declared price should be discarded. In the absence of discarding the evidences of the importer, it is not proper for the authorities to go into the prices on the basis of contemporaneous imports. In the overall facts and circumstances as mentioned above, we are of the view that the declared price is acceptable and, therefore, we allow the appeal with consequential reliefs to the appellants.
-
1997 (4) TMI 297 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Penalty - Misdeclaration of export goods ... ... ... ... ..... been rightly imposed by the adjudicating authority as major discrepancies had been found by the authorities in respect of the goods which were to be exported. 5. emsp I have carefully considered the submissions made from both sides. No doubt, that the goods which were to be exported had been found not tallying with the declaration made by the appellants in respect of the quantity and quality. Though no connivance or direct collusion had been brought on record by the Department, neither there was any allegation to that effect, nevertheless, the appellants were liable to penalty because of their negligence. Keeping in view the observations made by the adjudicating authority that the discrepancies occurred definitely owing to the negligence of the exporter or may be due to its collusion/connivance, I find that the penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh is much on the higher side. The same is accordingly reduced to Rs. 10,000.00 (Rupees ten thousand) only. The appeal is allowed in above terms.
-
1997 (4) TMI 289 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Refund - Duty paid ... ... ... ... ..... ill apply to any advance deposit made towards duty on short landed goods as short landed cannot be held to be imported goods. In the instant case, the goods have not at all landed and as such no duty liability can be created in respect of the goods which have not at all arrived. The amount deposited by the appellants is to be considered as an advance deposit with the Government of India convertable into duty of Customs at the time of clearance of the imported goods. When the goods have not at all been imported, the question of their clearance does not arise and as such the question of payment of any duty on the same does not arise. Consequently, the provision of Customs Act would also not apply to the goods which have not been landed. Accordingly, we hold that the provisions of Section 27 are not applicable to the deposit made by the appellants and the limitation will not apply. Consequently, I allow the appeal with consequential relief after setting aside the impugned order.
-
1997 (4) TMI 282 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Smuggling - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... longing of the goods we shall have to see in whose possession the godown during the material period was. For this there are persons who have testified that the godown was let out to Praveen Juneja and Tony. When letting out to Praveen Juneja and Tony and identification of Praveen Juneja by the two truck drivers and the statement of the two truck drivers that Praveen Juneja was the person receiving the smuggled goods nothing more is left to establish the chain and nexus of the goods. Thus I hold that Praveen Juneja was one of the persons concerned with smuggled goods. In this view of the matter I find that there is adequate evidence on record to prove that Praveen Juneja was concerned with smuggled goods. In the circumstances I set aside the impugned order and restore the order of adjudicating authority in so far as imposing penalty on Praveen Juneja is concerned. In the result the impugned order is modified to the extent stated above and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1997 (4) TMI 281 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... n who was in possession of any goods which were liable to confiscation was also liable to penal action. 10. emsp I have considered the submissions made on both sides. As regards the question of raising of a demand of duty on M/s. Tina Overseas the question does not survive in view of the permission already granted to them to transfer the same to the 100 EOU unit. On the question of imposition of penalty on National Polychem I find that the Collector (Appeals) rsquo order does not record any finding as to the acts of commission or omission by the appellants which attracts penal liability. In the face of the latter dated 3-6-1993 from the appellants M/s. National Polychem disclaiming any knowledge of the source of the moulds received by them and about their foreign origin and in the absence of any evidence to impute knowledge on their part, the imposition of penalty is not sustainable. 11. emsp In view of the above, both the appeals are allowed and the impugned order set aside.
-
1997 (4) TMI 276 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Reference to High Court - Violation of Tribunal’s order alleged ... ... ... ... ..... rection of the Tribunal under Rule 41 of the CEGAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 to direct the Commissioner not to make the assessments as mentioned in the said application for subsequent consignments. The prayer was that the subsequent must also be assessed in accordance with the Tribunal rsquo s Order No. A-414/Cal/96, dated 13-6-1996. That Application No. 152/97 has just been dismissed in the open Court. Following the same reasoning, we do not find that this application which listed similar instances for violation of the Tribunal rsquo s Order dated 13-6-1996 also requires to be dismissed. Accordingly, we dismiss the same.
-
1997 (4) TMI 266 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... we notice that the papers produced by the appellants are not readable at all and they are merely black sheets. Be that as it may, the appellants have not produced required exemption certificate as well as the examination report and the duplicate bill of entry. They have also not produced catalogue and other evidence in support of their contention. What has been produced is Chartered Engineers certificate which, only certifies that there are two types of Motors and it does not certify that the impugned goods in fact were internal gear motors. The diagram produced by them from the suppliers and it cannot be gathered that the goods are internal gear motors. In the diagram, there are certain linings which are totally illigible and it cannot be read at all. In any case the goods have left the Customs charge and the same cannot be examined by the department. The fact remains that the appellants have not substantiated their case. Therefore the appeal is dismissed as unsubstantiated.
-
1997 (4) TMI 264 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Redemption fine and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... alty of Rs. 800/- has been borne on these goods in terms of the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). The imposition of such a low redemption fine and personal penalty by the lower appellate authority will not neutralise the margin of profit on these items, submits the DR thereby defeating the very purpose of restriction of import of these items. The Department has not made out a case for justifying enhancement in the redemption fine and penalty particularly having regard to the fact that the Assistant Commissioner himself has recognised in his order that the import of these items is for use as crude drugs for the manufacture of Unani/Ayurvedic drugs. I am of the view that the lower appellate authority has exercised his discretion correctly while reducing the quantum of redemption fine and penalty and fine no strong reason for interfering with his order which is otherwise correct in law. Therefore, I uphold the orders of the lower appellate authority and reject these appeals.
-
1997 (4) TMI 263 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Reference to High Court - Import ... ... ... ... ..... within the meaning of Sl. No. 30 of Appendix XXXV of the said import licence. This in our view is a matter wherein the mixed question of law as well as facts are involved. In view of the above statement of facts as well as points involved as discussed above, we are of the view that a question of law does arise for reference to the Hon rsquo ble High Court. In this view of the matter, we refer the following question of law to the Hon rsquo ble High Court for their valuable advice in the above said matter - ldquo Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case the Tribunal was correct in holding that the lead acid battery which was imported by the appellant is covered by the said Import Licence of the Respondent rdquo . 9. emsp The Registry is directed to submit the above statement of facts along with the question of law to the Registrar, Hon rsquo ble High Court of Madras for being placed before the Hon rsquo ble High Court for their valued advice in the above said matter.
-
1997 (4) TMI 260 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation - Misdeclaration of description - Natural Justice - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... d to grounds referred to in clauses (g) to (i) para 6 of the order. Regarding each of the grounds referred to in clauses (a) to (f) of paragraph 6 of the order, we notice that appellant has offered explanation but the explanation has not been considered by the Commissioner. The Commissioner did not provide any good reason to conclude that lower price was a market promotion strategy. In these circumstances, the case deserves fresh consideration at the hands of the adjudicating authority. In so considering the matter, it shall be open to the authority to consider the data and grounds referred to in clauses (g) to (i) of para (6) of the order in the light of any new documents and explanations to be submitted by the appellant. 11. emsp For the reasons indicated above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority for fresh decision in accordance with law and the observations contained in this order. Appeal is allowed accordingly.
-
1997 (4) TMI 257 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Imported goods - Restoration of goods - Adjudication - Rectification of mistake - Appeal - Compensation
-
1997 (4) TMI 254 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation - Penalty - Import Policy - OGL ... ... ... ... ..... ines imported should be less than 7 years old (in addition to the further condition that they should have a residuary life of not less than 5 years). 10. emsp Therefore, the confiscation of one machine imported M/s. Rajah Hosiery and three machines imported by M/s. Lalsons is upheld and the confiscation of second machine imported by M/s. Rajah Hosiery and three other machines imported by M/s. Lalsons is set aside. The redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 50,000/- on each of the appellants. The personal penalties on both the appellants are set aside, having regard to the detailed findings of the Adjudicating authority that the burden of proving understanding or knowledge or reasonable belief by the appellants that the imported machines were liable to confiscation, has not been discharged by the department. In the result, the confiscation is upheld in part. Redemption find is reduced to Rs. 50,000/- and penalties in both cases are set aside. Appeals are disposed of in these terms.
|
