Home Case Index All Cases Customs 2009 2009 2009 (5) Customs - 2009 (5) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Customs - Case Laws

Showing 81 to 84 of 84 Records

• 2009 (5) TMI 84 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Release of imported goods – irregularity in IEC – held that - In other words, imports have been done in the name of the petitioner but for some other person. In so far as respondents/Customs Authorities is concerned, they have not pointed out to us any provision under the Customs Act or any Rule or Regulation framed thereunder by which the person having valid IEC Number and having paid the custom duty is prevented from importing goods. At the highest, if the petitioner has obtained IEC number by misrepresenting the Ministry of Commerce and Industry and Director General of Foreign Trade, it is for that body to take action. - petitioner having paid the custom duty is entitled to release of the goods. We, therefore, direct respondents to release the goods within 48 hours from today.

  ---

• 2009 (5) TMI 39 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Imposition of provisional safeguard duty – On application from domestic producers, Director General (Safeguards) issued notification of preliminary findings that safeguard duty @ of 31% ad valorem be imposed to protect the interest of domestic industry in respect of imports from China with regard to soda ash – submissions of the petitioner that the Director General has merely adopted the opinion given by the domestic producers without any investigation, is belied - Writ Petitions in such cases ought to be entertained in our view, when there is either a complete lack of jurisdiction or a palpable error so grave which requires imminent interference by a writ court - these are technical matters which are completely within the ken of the Director General - petition having no merit so dismissed

  ---

• 2009 (5) TMI 20 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Demanded in terms of proviso to Section 28(1) of Customs Act, 1962 - Appellant acquired and/or purchased transferable Duty Entitlement Pass Book issued in the name of M/s. Parker Industries - It is seen that in the SCN, there was no reference to the alleged infraction of M/s. Parker Industries, the transferor of the license in question - judgments of the CESTAT and the High Court that demand is barred by limitation, do not suffer from any infirmity to warrant interference

  ---

• 2009 (5) TMI 12 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Confiscation and penalty - undervaluation in the import of cloves by the appellant with intent to evade customs duty - appellant although claimed a transaction value, but such value could not be supported by production of the original contract or the invoices relating to procurement - department has also relied upon the contemporaneous documents like the Weekly Bulletin of Spices Market and also the Public Ledger – revenue’s case is based on cogent reasons - Department has correctly imposed proper assessment value

  ---

12345