|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 43 Records
-
1998 (2) TMI 597 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... impugned judgment of the Tribunal as well as the record. We do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
1998 (2) TMI 401 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... is supplied). From the retraction made before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Calcutta, I find that it is only alleging merciless assault and adoption of third degree measures against the Customs Officers, but does not establish such allegations. In fact, apart from assertion simpliciter, no evidence to prove the assertion has been brought on record. As such, I hold that on the spot, statement of Manoj Kumar Verma to be voluntary and worthy of reliance. I also find that no explanation has come forward from the appellant as to why the gold was handed over to his younger brother, Shri Manoj Kumar Verma from whose possession the same was admittedly recovered, when he was carrying the same to an unknown destination. The other decisions referred to by the appellant do not help them having been delivered in different facts and circumstances. 5. emsp In view of the foregoing discussions, I do not find any merits in the case and reject the appeal by up holding the impugned Orders.
-
1998 (2) TMI 400 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... have jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of any order referred to in Clause (b) if such order relates to any goods imported or exported as baggage. Therefore, this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) relates to goods imported as baggage. Once if the order relates to the goods imported as baggage then the first proviso is applicable. It is only when the first proviso is not applicable, the second proviso comes into the picture. Therefore, the order in this case relates to the baggage items which are imported by the appellants and therefore first proviso is attracted and the jurisdiction of the Tribunal is ousted. 6. emsp Therefore in my opinion a revision petition alone is maintainable. That being the case, I hold that this appeal is not maintainable and the Registry is directed to return the appeal papers alongwith the stay petition to the appellant for presentation before the proper forum. For statistical purposes, this stay petition and the appeal stands dismissed.
-
1998 (2) TMI 388 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Import - Machine - Composite machine ... ... ... ... ..... ver, we find that the ld. JDR brought to our notice section note 3 of Section XVI which we have already reproduced above . From the above said section note, it is clear that the subject consignment is of a composite machine consists of three machines which together have a complementary function and perform the principal function of generating electricity. Therefore, the whole issue is covered by the said section note and the adjudicating authority should have recourse to the above said section note and the refund application of the appellants should be redecided in the light of the above said section note. For this purpose, we are of the view that the matter requires to be remanded to the adjudicating authority. 5. emsp Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the case is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to decide the refund claim of the appellants in the light of our above observations in accordance with law. 6. emsp The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
1998 (2) TMI 385 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Import against value based advance licence ... ... ... ... ..... t been dealt with by the adjudicating authority at all. This was duly pointed out by the applicant/appellants herein in para 3 of their reply to SCN. In view of extension period for fulfilment of export obligation and the fact that export obligation has since been fulfilled the charge of violation of Notification No. 203/92 is not sustainable. Hence, we are of the view that the imposition of duty liability and imposition of penalty on the applicants cannot be sustained. Hence, we set aside the impugned order so far as the applicant/appellant is concerned. Hence, we allow the appeal itself. In view of the above, the stay petition also gets disposed of. rdquo 5. emsp Following the earlier decision of this Tribunal, we are of the view that there is no case for demand of duty and there is no violation. In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order with respect to the appellant and the penalty imposed on the appellant is also set aside. 6. emsp The appeal is allowed.
-
1998 (2) TMI 366 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Customs House Agent Licence - Suspension of ... ... ... ... ..... 23 come to be taken against him. But so far as the suspension of the licence is concerned, we are inclined to follow the Tribunal decision in the case of Syed Ahmed and Co. v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi - 1996 (84) E.L.T. 494 (Tribunal) and Tribunal decision in the case of Kothari and Sons v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - 1997 (94) E.L.T. 219 (Tribunal) cited before us by ld. Counsel wherein the Tribunal took note of the loss of livelihood caused by suspension for long period of the CHA licence and directed that suspension be revoked. We, therefore direct the Commissioner to restore the CHA licence to the appellants after taking suitable safeguards as deemed necessary to facilitate proper investigation. It is made clear that this direction to set aside the suspension order is without prejudice to the right to the department to proceed in the matter in the light of the investigation under Regulation 23 of CHA Regulations. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1998 (2) TMI 362 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Thyristors are semi-conductors - Eligible for exemption under Notification No. 91/89-Cus. as amended by Notification No. 174/89-Cus.
-
1998 (2) TMI 361 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Reference to High Court ... ... ... ... ..... ering that question of law. 3. emsp In the present case, the Customs (Preventive) is seeking review of the Tribunal rsquo s Order. It is not permissible under the provisions of Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. It is also seen from the findings of the Tribunal in the Order dated 2-6-1997 that the Tribunal on the basis of appreciation of evidence had held that Shri Ram Avtar Agarwal rsquo s statements are in the nature of hearsay evidence and in the nature of statement of co-accused. These statements are not sufficient to penalise the appellants. Consequently, the impugned Order was set aside and the appeal was allowed with consequential reliefs to the appellant. This finding, it is apparent, is an appreciation of evidence. It is well-settled that sufficiency of evidence is not a question of law. Accordingly, the question raised by the Commissioner being not a question of law is not valid for referring to the High Court. Consequently, the Reference Application is rejected.
-
1998 (2) TMI 357 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Customs House Agent licence - Suspension of ... ... ... ... ..... on contemplated in the normal course that the licence must not be suspended except by following the procedure specified of issue of notice, opportunity for hearing etc. It is only in exceptional cases that suspension without licence under Regulation 21 is justified. We are not satisfied that this was one of those cases where recourse to this action was justified. The facts of the case did not require such urgency that the passing of a month or so within which notice for suspension could have been issued and the Custom House Agent heard and, thereafter if necessary order passed for suspension under Regulation 17 could not have been aforded. 7. emsp Considering all the factors that we have discussed, we are of the view that the suspension should be set aside and revoked and the licence restored. The Commissioner however is at liberty to take steps to suspend the licence in terms of Regulation 17 if he considers that appropriate. 8. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
1998 (2) TMI 352 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... he was an illiterate person. It was argued that statement was in English not written by him. If that was the case, we cannot understand then how he could sign the statement in Hindi. During the course of the arguments the ld. Counsel laid stress on the point of cross-examination. We do not find any relevance of this plea. By cross-examining the officer who had recorded the panchnama how will they know about the acquiring of the smuggled goods. We are therefore of the view that the entire plea made by the ld Counsel for the appellant is not at all appealing to us. As far as the burden of proof is concerned, the ld. Counsel rsquo s argument and the facts revealed, we are not satisfied that the burden cast on the appellant under Section 123 of the Customs Act has not been discharged in this case. We are therefore of the view that the entire case has been rightly decided by the lower authority. We therefore feel that no interference is called for. 6. emsp Appeal stands dismissed.
-
1998 (2) TMI 349 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Refund - Unjust enrichment ... ... ... ... ..... eeking documentary evidence to back up the Chartered Accountant certificate because the certificate itself seems to have been based on checking of the respondents rsquo record by the Chartered Accountant. In such a situation, the respondents should have been in a position to produce the relevant sale bills or documents relating to placing of the order and the terms of supply which are surrounding corroborative circumstances of proof that the burden of duty has not been passed on to any other person. In this context, it is also seen that it is not an import of calculators along with instruction manual but the instruction manual seems to have been imported by themselves separately. In these circumstances, the Chartered Accountant certificate is not sufficient and it cannot be accepted as the sole document to satisfy the department that the duty burden has not been passed on to any other person. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the department rsquo s appeal.
-
1998 (2) TMI 345 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... the seven compared imports. Without such details, it would not be correct to state that since the compared import from CIS and the imports from other countries were at the same price, namely, US 2245.00 per metric tonne CIF, this price should be accepted as correct in the case of the said imports. 6. emsp In view of the circumstances indicated above, we are not satisfied that the Commissioner has arrived at the correct assessable value. Correct assessable value has to be determined on consideration of the various circumstances referred to above and after ascertaining the relevant facts indicated above. 7. emsp For the reasons indicated above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority for decision afresh in accordance with the law and the observations contained in this order. If any more details are collected by the authority, the same will be made available to the appellant before personal hearing. The appeal is allowed.
-
1998 (2) TMI 342 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ear to have been considered by the lower authorities. The claim of the present appellants that the Bill of Entry was assessed duty free on 13-3-1987 has not been disputed by the Department. Once the assessment to duty is complete, the fact that the goods were not physically removed by the importer and that it had to be sold subsequently in auction cannot by itself become a ground for reassessing the goods and for demanding duty thereon. 8. emsp We accordingly set aside the impugned order and direct the jurisdictional Executive Commissioner of Customs to issue directions to the concerned Assistant Commissioner to deal as appropriately with the request, if any, of the present appellant for the return of the amount of Rs. 5,62,878 appropriated towards Customs duty from the sale proceeds of the impugned goods in accordance with law. The concerned Assistant Commissioner will no doubt observe the principles of natural justice and pass a speaking order while disposing of the matter.
-
1998 (2) TMI 340 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption under Notification No. 104/90-Cus. admissible. ... ... ... ... ..... alled Rheometer rsquo by one concern and Elastograph by another. We observe that the learned Collector has passed a very well-reasoned Order on the above basis and has rightly concluded that in the light of the material placed before him including the certificates of the experts of Rubber Research Institute of India, Kottayam, Department of Polymer Science and Rubber Technology, Cochin University, it is apparent that Rheometer rsquo and Elastograph rsquo are merely different names of basically the same type of machine. In our opinion also, these too can only be treated virtually as synonyms rsquo . Since the exemption Notification No. 104/90 admittedly specifies Rheometer rsquo as one of the items eligible for lower rate of duty, the same benefit was required to be extended to the Elastograph rsquo . Hence, we see no reason to interfere with the Order passed by the learned Collector. The Department rsquo s appeal is, therefore, rejected as already announced in the open court.
-
1998 (2) TMI 333 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Watch cases with bracelets - not eligible for benefit of exemption under Notification No. 44/85-Cus. and No. 65/87-Cus.
-
1998 (2) TMI 331 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... zed currency of Rs. 50,000/- was attempted to be taken to Bangladesh. The discrepancy referred to in the impugned order in the two statements of Emajuddin does not lead to the conclusion as drawn by the original authority. The fact remains from the reading of two statements that the money belongs to Lutfal Haque. A slight discrepancy of getting hold of this money whether from the wife of Lutfal Haque or from Lutfal Haque does not make much of a material difference. I am, therefore, of the view, that no case has been made out by the lower authorities that the Indian currency of Rs. 50,000/- was attempted to be exported by the appellant Emajuddin. In the circumstances and discussions as aforesaid, I quash the impugned order and allow the Appeals with consequential relief to the appellants. 6.2. emsp In short, Indian currency of Rs. 50,000/- be restored to the rightful owner i.e. Lutfal Haque and penalty of Rs. 5,000/- each of them is set-aside. Appeals are allowed as aforesaid.
-
1998 (2) TMI 315 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Valuation - Undervaluation ... ... ... ... ..... o observe that the enhancement made by the Customs Authorities is only to the tune of 4 of the price actually assessed by the Customs Authorities. Such a small margin, we are of the view, can also happen due to proper bargaining in regard to quantity and quality of goods and various other commercial factors which may enter into agreement between the supplier and the purchaser/importer. There being no evidence to rebut that the value declared at U.S. 720 per M.T. is not a correct transaction-value, we accept the same. We also note at this stage that the transaction-value in a particular case can be discarded only in terms of Customs (Valuation) Rules and not otherwise. Hence, we allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. Since the goods have already been cleared at higher value, the appellants may be entitled to some amount of refund. But the refund will be granted according to the present provision of law as contained in Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.
-
1998 (2) TMI 314 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Show cause notice - Scope - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... is not signed by any one (ii) it relates to a period long after the relevant period (iii) validity of the quotation is just for two days (iv) no import has been shown to have been made against the said quotation. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellant has been able to successfully rebut the evidence of the Revenue as being unworthy of reliance and prove his case with his own evidence of similar imports made through Calcutta Port. We, therefore, hold that there is no misdeclaration of value as held by the Commissioner. 6.1.3 emsp Next issue is regarding nexus between imported goods and its requirement for use in export product. Our finding above on this issue in favour of the appellant will hold good for this Appeal as well. 6.1.4 emsp Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order dated 25-9-1995 and allow the appeal CV-41/97A with consequential relief to the appellant. 6.1.5 emsp In short, all the three Appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellant.
-
1998 (2) TMI 304 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Penalty - Smuggled goods ... ... ... ... ..... ppellant. He orders confiscation of the goods on the ground that they were smuggled. He also accepts that the appellant did not smuggle the goods but imposes the penalty on the grounds that the appellant rsquo s version is not credible and it does not wish to have the owner of the goods. While the departmental representative reiterates the reasoning of the Collector but it is seen to be contradictory. The Collector says that he takes a lenient view because there is no evidence that the appellant knowingly and with mala fide intention took smuggled goods into the possession. If this was the case and in the absence of knowledge of mala fides is accepted it would follow that no penalty can be imposed in terms of sub-clause (2) of Section 112 of the Act which requires the presence of knowledge or reason to believe that goods are liable to be confiscated. The order of Commissioner is therefore, not sustainable. Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside. Consequential relief if any.
-
1998 (2) TMI 298 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Import - Auction sale of uncleared consignment of electrolytic copper wire bars by Port Trust
|
