|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1198 Records
-
2009 (12) TMI 1048
... ...
... ... ..... for the appellant. Delay condoned. The civil appeals are dismissed.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1046
... ...
... ... ..... of by directing the Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Administration) to complete the proceedings and pass an adjudication order within six months from the date of communication of this order. The petitioner shall not seek any adjournment of hearing. The stay of the suspension order shall continue till an adjudication order is passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Airport and Administration). Urgent certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
-
2009 (12) TMI 1004
... ...
... ... ..... exchange. Once it is established from the orders passed by the CESTAT as upheld by this Court that the appellant had imported the material which is iron and steel scrap and the foreign exchange was issued to the appellant for that purpose only, it cannot be said that there is any violation of the provisions of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 (for short, “the Act”). If violation is not established, penalty on the appellant cannot be levied. In fact, as is evident from the proceedings, the levy of penalty on the appellant under the Act was upheld by noticing that the appellant had not challenged the orders passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) under the Customs Act which was, in fact, not correct as subsequently that order was set aside by the CESTAT, as upheld by this Court. 3. Considering the aforesaid facts, the impugned order passed by the learned Tribunal cannot be sustained and it is accordingly set aside. 4. The appeal stands disposed of.
-
2009 (12) TMI 978
... ...
... ... ..... 17.11.1994 and 6.9.1996 passed by the competent authority and the tribunal respectively was dismissed by the High Court on 16.2.2005 and Special Leave Petition (C) No. 10348/2005 was dismissed on 10.5.2005. This being the position, the Division Bench of the High Court did not commit any error by refusing to review order dated 16.2.2005 and we do not find any valid ground to interfere with the impugned order. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2009 (12) TMI 965
... ...
... ... ..... unsel appearing on behalf of the appellant seeks leave to withdraw these appeals with liberty to take recourse to an appropriate remedy as may be available to the appellant against the order impugned in these appeals. Accordingly, the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn with liberty as prayed for subject to just exceptions including limitation.
-
2009 (12) TMI 924
... ...
... ... ..... of the goods, and in the process he is required to consider the reports of the laboratory. He has not held that since the imported goods are deemed to be adulterated articles of food, the petitioner cannot be permitted to import them. It is evident that on the facts of the case, the proper officer of the customs cannot hold that the goods should be deemed to be adulterated. I, therefore, do not see under what authority he can withhold his order permitting clearance of the imported goods. In my opinion, he is under a statutory obligation to make an order permitting clearance of the goods. For these reasons, I allow the three petitions and order as follows. Within a week from the date of communication of this order the proper officer of the customs shall make the requisite order permitting clearance of the goods, and within 48 hours from the moment of payment of the assessed duty, the petitioner shall be permitted to clear the goods. No costs. Certified xerox according to law.
-
2009 (12) TMI 922
Quantum of redemption fine and penalty - Revenue's contention is that the margin of profit is 20 per cent to 22 per cent and thus, the redemption fine and penalty, are on the lower side - Held that: - the value was enhanced by the Department based on Chartered Engineer's Certificate. The Commissioner (Appeals) relied upon the Tribunal's decision in the case of Navpad Enterprises and Ors. [2008 (3) TMI 604 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] by which redemption fine and penalty of 10 per cent and 5 per cent, respectively were imposed - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2009 (12) TMI 921
... ...
... ... ..... ondents. Learned counsel for the respondents summits that petitioner has an alternative remedy to file a revision before the Central Government. Learned counsel for the petitioner admits that such a remedy is available to him. In this view of the matter, the writ petition is dismissed
-
2009 (12) TMI 916
... ...
... ... ..... ting to file SLP before the Apex Court. 5. Having heard learned counsels appearing for the parties and having gone through the petitions, we are of the view that the issue involved in the present petitions is squarely covered by the decision of this Court in Special Civil Application No.9656 of 2008 and other cognate matters. In the said group of petitions, we have observed that levy of export duty on goods supplied from the domestic tariff area to the Special Economic Zone is not justified. We, therefore, took the view that the petitioners are not called upon to pay the export duty on movement of goods from domestic tariff area to Special Economic Zone Units or developers. 6. In the above view of the matter, the present petitions are accordingly allowed to the above extent. Rule is made absolute without any order as to costs. 7. On request being made by Mr. Champaneri, the operation, implementation and execution of this order is stayed for a period of four weeks from today.
-
2009 (12) TMI 914
... ...
... ... ..... By the impugned orders, the authorities below have rejected the claim on the ground that the goods were actually sent to Dubai whereas destination of the goods in shipping bill was Masco, Russia. Findings have been recorded by the authorities below that it was fraudulently done and the penalty was also levied on the petitioners. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners could not point out any error in the impugned orders. 4. We find no merit in the writ petition. 5. The writ petition is dismissed accordingly.
-
2009 (12) TMI 910
Smuggling - heroin - Section 67 of the NDPS Act - substantiating of statement of respondent - confiscation - penalty
-
2009 (12) TMI 843
Valuation - determination of assessable value in respect of the imports made through different Bills of Entry - Held that: - In absence of show cause notice, no head or tail could be made out. We do not find any recorded order passes in adjudication - Finding that Revenue has not brought out any material for contradiction, we are not inclined to interfere with the order passed by the learned first Appellate Authority - appeal rejected - decided against Revenue.
-
2009 (12) TMI 842
... ...
... ... ..... further, the amount has not where been shown as lsquo receivable rsquo and therefore formed in essential part of ldquo expenditure rdquo . It was also noted that no sales invoices or Chartered Accountants rsquo certificate had been produced to negate the presumption under section 28D. The appellants rsquo argument that they had shown refundable amount under ldquo revenue expenditure rdquo does not prove beyond an iota of doubt that the refundable amount had not been passed on further. rdquo From the above, it is clear that the appellants have debited the amount of this recurring deposit as material consumption, which forms the part of the cost of production. In that term, bar of unjust enrichment in this case is applicable and the appellants are failed to prove that the burden of payment claimed as refund has not been passed on to the consumers. 5. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, same is upheld and the appeal is rejected. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2009 (12) TMI 840
... ...
... ... ..... y callous manner, deliberately misled the facts and failed to perform his duties as prescribed in CHALR rsquo 2004. As the findings are basically relating to omissions and commissions under CHALR rsquo 2004, we prima facie, do not find justification for imposition of penalties under Section 114 of the Customs Act. 2. In view of the above, we waive pre-deposit of penalties and stay recoveries thereof till disposal of the appeals. 3. These appeals are to be tagged on to connected Appeal Nos. C/234, 235, 236 and 237/2009.
-
2009 (12) TMI 837
... ...
... ... ..... nged the enhanced value, they do not press the challenge during the course of the arguments before us. The only submission raised before us is that the confiscation is not warranted, for the reason that even pipes other than reconditioned/refurbished pipes are freely importable without any licence as per para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy. However, we do not agree with the submission, in the light of the clear language of the policy which states that ldquo Import of second hand capital goods, including refurbished/reconditioned spares shall be allowed freely rsquo , we therefore, uphold the confiscation. However, since the imported goods have been used by the assessees for drilling, the fine and penalty amounts warrant reduction. We, therefore, reduce the fine in lieu of confiscation to Rs. 1,20,000/- and penalty to Rs. 25,000/-, while upholding the enhanced value of the impugned goods. 4. The appeal is thus partly allowed. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2009 (12) TMI 832
... ...
... ... ..... along with reconciliation statement. It appears, at this juncture, many of these documents in original are not available with the assessee. The question therefore is whether the procedural requirements under Regulation No. 7 can be held to have been substantially met by the assessee. The learned Consultant has, in this connection claimed support from the Tribunal rsquo s decision in the case of Polyplex Corporation Ltd., v. CCE, Mumbai (2007 (211) E.L.T. 548 (Tri.-Del.). In the cited case, this Tribunal took the view that if the assessee could establish that the substantive condition has been satisfied the benefit of project import should be granted to them while finalizing the provisional assessment of the goods imported under the scheme. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case coupled with the case law cited by the Consultant, we are inclined to grant waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in this case. It is ordered accordingly. (Dictated in Court)
-
2009 (12) TMI 827
... ...
... ... ..... ding that the value of goods covered by 7 out of the 10 Bills of Entry has been misdeclared and in respect of two Bills of Entry, there is an additional misdeclaration of the description of the goods mdash only Mother Boards have been declared while the consignment was found to contain Mother Boards as well as Daughter Boards. 4. In the light of the above, we uphold the impugned order of confiscation and re-determination of value and confirmation of differential duty demands and imposition of penalty on the importer-firm. However, having regard to the totality of facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the penalty on Shri Kamal Kumar Jain to Rs. 1,000,000/- (Rupees One Lakh only) and Shri P. Yogesh to Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand only). 5. In the light of the above, Appeal No. C/249/2002 is dismissed, while Appeal Nos. C/250 and 251/2002 are partly allowed by way of reduction in penalty. (Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 9-12-2009)
-
2009 (12) TMI 826
... ...
... ... ..... 2004, passed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Jt. Secretary, Ministry of Finance, vide Order No. 34/2007 dated 22-1-2007 confirmed the amount of drawback ineligibly claimed by the appellant and upheld the demand of interest. There is nothing to show that the appellant has challenged this order before higher forum. Consequent to such an order, the Assistant Commissioner, Kakinada calculated the interest and demanded same. Against such an order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal. Hence this appeal. 5. On a careful consideration of the submissions made by the learned JDR and perusal of the appeal memo, we find that the issue is regarding interest payable on the amount of drawback which was wrongly claimed by the appellant. We find that we do not have any jurisdiction as the issue is connected with the drawback. Hence the appeal is dismissed as not maintainable. The stay petition and the appeal are disposed off accordingly.
-
2009 (12) TMI 818
Penalty u/s 114 of CA - import of prohibited item - Red Sanders Logs - Held that: - The goods were stuffed in the container under the Central Excise supervision and the red sanders logs were substituted en route to the Chennai Port. It is intriguing to find that the seals were not tampered with and they were intact at the time of examination of the consignments. The impugned order does not contain any material to conclude that the exporter either knew that the goods were liable to confiscation or did something or omitted to do something which commission or omission tendered the goods liable to confiscation - penalty cannot be sustained - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appelalnt.
-
2009 (12) TMI 812
... ...
... ... ..... that the impugned goods had been removed from the warehouse, clandestinely. The lower authorities did not rely on any evidence for finding of such removal from the warehouse. The assessee all along maintained that the impugned goods were available in stock in the warehouse. We find that the impugned demand of duty cannot be sustained under Section 72(a) of the Act without evidence of their removal as envisaged in the said section. In this view of the matter the question of depreciation and admissibility of part of the goods (Order No. 23/08) not being entitled to the benefit of the notifications is also not relevant. As the goods had been warehoused and undisputedly used for the manufacture of export goods, finding of their liability to confiscation and APC rsquo s liability to penalty u/s 112(a) is also not sustainable. In the circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals filed M/s. American Power Conversion Ltd. (Pronounced in open court on 4-12-2009)
........
|
