|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 1198 Records
-
2009 (12) TMI 654 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE
Revision Application - Air passenger failed to declare Indian currency that he was carrying while going abroad, currency was absolutely confiscated - applicant has filed revision application before the Revisionary Authority mainly on the grounds that Lower authority ought to have appreciated that the violation was of regulation and rules framed thereunder and absolute confiscation was harsh and excessive - Held that:- Govt. feels that absolute confiscation is very harsh and an option for redemption can be given under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, the confiscated Indian currency equivalent to Indian Rs. 46,500/- is allowed to be redeemed on payment of Redemption Fine of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only ) in lieu of confiscation, under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, personal penalty imposed by the lower authority appears reasonable and there is no ground to reduce, revision application succeeds
-
2009 (12) TMI 653 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE
Revision Application - drawback claim - appellant complied in respect of all the documents called for except the BRC, appellants were issued with a deficiency memo by DC, Customs ICD on 13-10-2006 calling for some more documents viz. CENVAT non utilization certification, Annexure-I and II, delay of condonation letter, and explanation of discrepancy on TR 6 challan, etc – Held that:- main conditions of Section 74 of Customs Act, 1962 that the identity of re-exported goods is established w.r.t. to imported goods and goods are entered for export within two years from the date of payment of duty on importation thereof, are fulfilled. The drawback claim was initially filed on 6-4-06 and the other document required as per deficiencies pointed on the margin of drawback claim papers, were complied within the extended period of 3 months. Department was required to issue proper deficiency memo within 15 days which they failed to issue. The documents specified in Rule 5(2)(a) to (g) were submitted within extended period of 3 months which can be condoned by Assistant Commissioner, applicant had submitted all document mentioned in Rule 5(2)(a) to (g) within extended period of 3 months and therefore Assistant Commissioner should consider the condonation of delay and decide the drawback claim on merit, orders set aside and remands the case back to original adjudicating authority for de novo adjudication, revision application is disposed off
-
2009 (12) TMI 645 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE
Revision application - Drawback claim – delay in filing claim - only Custom portion of Duty Drawback amount was released and the Central Excise portion was not released by the Department - Assistant Commissioner of Customs, rejected the claim as time barred - contentions of the exporter that due to the late receipt of the statement from the Bank, showing the drawback amount short released and their being busy in the various trade fairs during the period, there was a delay of about 3 months in filing of their supplementary drawback claim - delay was not condoned by the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner (Drawback) for being not found justifiable - Held that:- Respondent’s plea of late receipt of Bank statement is neither legal nor it can be considered as a binding requirement for the jurisdictional customs authorities. As regards second plea of remaining busy in various “International Trade Fairs”, Govt. is of the opinion that during such time-periods nobody stops his business activities and one has to make alternative arrangements for smooth functioning of their official work. Govt. does not find this plea of personal/internal busyness of the respondent as a valid reason so as to bind the Customs Authorities to act as per the convenience of individual exporter - clarificatory circulars/instructions/public notices issued from time to time are not mere formalities but are bindings not only for Customs authorities but for the trade also, Govt. finds the impugned order-in-appeal as not legal and proper and the same is hereby set aside. The impugned order-in-original passed by jurisdictional Asstt. Commissioner (Drawback) is upheld, revision application succeeds
-
2009 (12) TMI 611 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Search and seizure - Defreezing of bank accounts and D-mat account - Provisional release of the goods - Evasion of duty - Violation of section 124 - principle of natural justice - Held that:- a notice in terms of Section 124(c) of the Act was issued on 15-7-2009 to the petitioner to provide a reasonable opportunity of being hear, which stipulated a week’s time. It was received by the petitioner on 16-7-2009 and a period of one week was to expire on 23-7-2009. The petitioner was to appear on 20-7-2009 when it has requested for supplying copies of the documents. However, the order was passed on 20-7-2009 itself. Like in the earlier case, it has to be held in this case as well that the opportunity to make representation within the meaning of Section 124(c) of the Act has been rendered illusory as the order has been passed prior to the expiry of seven days and no effective opportunity of hearing has been afforded. The order extending the period of six months has not been communicated to the petitioner in the instant case also. - Since the period of six months has already expired, therefore, the detention Memo, dated 22-1-2009 (P-2), order of seizure dated 20-2-2009 (P-6) and order of confiscation of case dated 9-6-2009, under Section 111 read with Section 2(22) and 2(39), 120 and 121 of the Act (P-7) are also quashed.
-
2009 (12) TMI 609 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Demand - Vatted Malt and Grain Spirit Compound - after provisional assessment, the Department contended that the goods imported by the petitioners should be classified under residuary item 2208.90 and since the petitioners did not have the licence required for import of goods falling under the aforesaid tariff item, the said goods became liable to confiscation - Even assuming that there has been no violation of natural justice, no show-cause notice could be issued, since admittedly, there were doubts regarding classification of the said goods - The argument that by the impugned show cause notice, the petitioners were only given an opportunity to make their submissions before final assessment, cannot be accepted, since the petitioners have also been directed to show cause why the goods should not be held confiscable and why penalty should not be imposed - The writ application is disposed of
-
2009 (12) TMI 601 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Waiver of pre-deposit - plea of financial hardships - Today, the date appointed for report of compliance, there is no representation for any of them, nor any request in writing for extension of time for making pre-deposit - Decided against the assessee
-
2009 (12) TMI 560 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Drawback – Conversion of free shipping bills to drawback shipping bills – Soya bean meal exported and drawback cannot claimed due to ignorance of its entitlement - entitlement to 1% All Industry Rate drawback requested for conversion of the free shipping bills into drawback shipping bills - Commissioner rejected the request for the reason that the asessees had failed to comply with the provisions of Rule 12(1)(a) of the Drawback Rules, 1995 not for reasons beyond his control - appellants' case is covered by the said Rule 12(1)(a) of the Drawback Rules - Commissioner erred in holding that its failure to file a drawback shipping bill owing to ignorance of its entitlement is not a reason beyond the control of the exporter
-
2009 (12) TMI 555 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Penalty - Unjust Enrichment - amount deposited by the respondent during the pendency of the proceedings - Appellate Authority, confirmation of demand of duty under Section 28 is not correct - application for refund - Held that: - Authority rejected the refund on the ground of unjust enrichment - amount paid by the respondent during the course of investigation was treated as deposit and that finding was not further challenged by the department, principles of unjust enrichment cannot be applied - appeal is dismissed
-
2009 (12) TMI 554 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Pre-deposit - statutory appeal directing the petitioner company to deposit a sum of Rs. 1 lac towards pre-deposit - Drawing the attention of this Court towards the unamended provisions of Section 114 of the Customs Act maximum amount of penalty which could be imposed for violation of the provisions of Section 113 of Act was Rs. 5000/- prior to May 14, 2003 - material date of this case being 11th August, 2000 - Held that: - this point was not discussed by the respondent while passing the impugned order with a direction to deposit Rs. 1,00,000/- towards pre-deposit - non-consideration, the impugned order is liable to be set aside - direct the respondent to reconsider the prayer of the petitioner company afresh - application stands disposed of
-
2009 (12) TMI 537 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay - delay of 690 days - for application for restoration – Appeal was dismissed – notice served but no objection to condoned the delay - delay has been properly explained – delay condoned - Application is accordingly allowed
-
2009 (12) TMI 535 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Imported consignments of granules - declared them as raw materials for manufacturing of outer layer of heat shrinkable sleeve (component for telecom cable jointing kits) - Appellant sought to classify this product under Chapter Heading 8547. The adjudicating authority rejected the said claim of classification and classified the same under heading 3901.90, after samples of the said goods were drawn and sent to Dy. Chief Chemist who opined that the samples as “black coloured granules composed of pigmented polyethylene” – Held that: - outer layer heat shrinkable sleeve in granule form will fall under chapter heading 8547 of the Customs Tariff Act - order dated 24-10-2007 - issue is now squarely covered in favour of the appellant
-
2009 (12) TMI 485 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation of cosmetics - import of cosmetic is allowed only through the points of entry specified under Rule 43-A of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules – Held that: - cosmetic is covered by Entry No. 1 in Schedule D of Rule 132 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and the appellant is entitled for exemption from the provisions of the Chapter 3 of the D&C Act and Rules – Goods can be cleared from any port.
-
2009 (12) TMI 483 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Delay in filling appeal – Reason for delay is - Affairs of the firm is run by husband of the proprietor in his capacity as Manager and he was ill – Held that: - Tribunal is directed to decide the appeal on merits.
-
2009 (12) TMI 477 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Drawback - petitioner-company claimed drawback on the export of the goods. Third respondent sanctioned and granted the drawback in a sum of Rs. 1,19,102/- as claimed. Thereafter, on 19-11-2003, the third respondent issued notice/letter stating that excess drawback was claimed and paid due to wrong classification and called upon the petitioner to repay the excess amount of Rs. 1,00,142/- within fifteen days from the date of receipt of the notice/letter. The third respondent passed the Order-in-Original coming to the conclusion that the goods as exported by the petitioner would merit classification under Serial No. 60.07 and is eligible for the drawback at Rs. 12/- per kg only. The second respondent upheld the finding of the third respondent on merits rejecting the petitioner's plea. Held that - petitioner cannot plead that exported goods should be classified under different headings contrary to description given in the invoice and the shipping bill which have been assessed and cleared for export. Concurrent findings by authorities on facts with regard to classification of goods, needs no interference by High Court. Interest on drawback - Held that- when claimant is liable to pay the excess amount of drawback he is liable to pay interest as well. No notice need to be issued separately as the payment of interest become automatic, once it is held the excess drawback has to be repaid.
-
2009 (12) TMI 466 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Seizure - Tug on high seas, release sought pending appeal before Appellate Tribunal. Tribunal not having second member and no devision bench could be constituted and as such the appeal could not be heard. Held that- tug is lying idle on high sea and deteriorating day by day. Petition disposed by directing deposit of Rs. 75,00,000 being redemption fine by petitioner subject to which the tug be released by respondent.
-
2009 (12) TMI 439 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
SEZ – Jurisdiction – Show cause notice issued by Commissioner of Custom to unit in SEZ. Revenue contending that section 2, 21 and 22 of SEZ Act, 2005 yet to be operationlised and Commissioner of Custom empowered to issue SCN and adjudicate. Contention also that Development Commissioner vested with administrative control of SEZ not empowered to adjudicate offence under Custom Act. Held that – contention prima facie not acceptable. Power to issue SCN cannot be usurped until such authority satisfies court about locus standi and jurisdiction. Interim relief continue till final disposal.
-
2009 (12) TMI 429 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Redemption fine and penalty- the adjudicating authority has passed an Order-in-Original communicating to the appellant on with regard to confiscation of 1,20,000 pieces of scarves and giving option to redeem the confiscated goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs.14 lacs in lieu of confiscation under provisions of Section-125 of the Act and also imposed penalty of Rs.5 lacs on the appellant under Section-114 of the Act and also imposed penalty of Rs.2 lacs on the partner of the appellant firm. The CESTAT vide its order reduced the redemption fine of Rs.14 lacs to Rs.5 lacs and penalty from Rs.5 lacs to Rs.4 lacs. The separate penalty levied on the partner of M/s.Cosmos was deleted. Being aggrieved by the said order of the Tribunal the present Tax Appeal is preferred. Held that- Tribunal noting that misdeclaration and inflation of value of scarves with intent to earn fraudulently NFE and confiscation sustainable. Penalty reduced from 5 lakh to 4 lakh by Tribunal. Evidence considered and finding of fact given by Tribunal. Substantial question of law not arise.
-
2009 (12) TMI 423 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Classification – import of ‘Uni-Lite XCEL’- Appellant claimed classification under CTH 9027.80 as an instrument for measuring quantity of light. The authorities below have classified the same under CTH 9031.80 as measuring or checking device not specified elsewhere. – Held that: - that the impugned goods is not an instrument for measurement of light, rather it is an instrument for measuring ATP levels thereby determining contamination/cleanliness levels of surfaces and liquids. Therefore, it cannot be classified under the Heading specific to light meters. The residuary entry under 9031.80 which covers other instruments is the more appropriate heading.
-
2009 (12) TMI 419 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Penalty – MD of Custom House Agent stating that person who gave him export documents had prepared Annexure-A and signed shipping bills and that person had received invoice from forwarding agent. However, if he was only acting as Custom House Agent, there was no explanation how he become aware of these facts. Employee of Custom House Agent knew that this signature on shipping bill was forged by forwarding agent and the other person, but still did not take any action them. Held that- forged shipping bills in name of Custom House Agent were filed with full knowledge of its MD and employee. Imposition of penalty on Custom House Agent upheld.
-
2009 (12) TMI 398 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Classification- whether the imported cargo is of non-edible grade of palmolein attracting tariff rate is eligible for exemption under Customs Exemption Notification No. 21/02 dated 1st March 2002 as amended by Notification No. 120/2003 dated 1st August 2003. Whether the imported goods were complying with the conditions as laid down in the notification. Held that- find that the acid value in all these consignments is confirming to the specification of acid value as given in Notification No. 120/2003 i.e. more than 2%, Second condition given in the said notification regarding carotenoid content (as beta carotene) is not being satisfied as the chemical examiner has reported total carotenoid value ranging from 408 to 449 mg per kg. This particular value does not satisfy the conditions laid down in the said notification. In view of these facts arid circumstances, we hold that the impugned order is correct and does not suffer from any infirmity and appeals are rejected.
........
|
