|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 1198 Records
-
2009 (12) TMI 396 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Confiscation and Penalty- . The EOU commenced commercial production from 19-11-1995 but failed to fulfill the export obligation. As such, the assessee appeared to have contravened the conditions (3) & (4) of the Notification No. 13/81-Cus., dt. 9-2-1981 as amended and contravened the conditions of Notification No. 1/95-CE, dated 4-1-1995 as amended for duty free procurement of indigenous goods. Appellant submitted that they were fored to close down the business owing to problems such as lack of orders, internal competition, low prices and working capital. Held that- order confiscating the capital goods and raw material and imposing redemption fine and penalty on EOU, set aside.
-
2009 (12) TMI 387 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation-penalty- Illegal export of wheat to Nepal. No dispute that Indian wheat stored very close to Nepal border. Admitted that impugned goods meant for illegal export through unauthorized route. Goods rightly held liable for confiscation. However, neither SCN nor impugned order indicated any prohibition for export of wheat to Nepal. In case of non-prohibited goods, option for redemption to be necessarily given in terms of section 125 of Custom Act, 1962. since goods already auctioned, appellant eligible for refund of sale proceeds after adjusting fine and fine which also held as not excessive.
-
2009 (12) TMI 375 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Confiscation of vehicle- The Revenue challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) setting aside the confiscation of used Hyundai Terracan Motor Car imported by the respondent herein under Transfer of Residence Rules, under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 on the ground that the car was not in the possession of the importer. Held that- no contravention of section 111(d) of Custom Act, 1962 made out against importer.
-
2009 (12) TMI 351 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Boat and launches Parts-Notification No. 23/98-Cus. dated 2-6-98- Show-cause notice was issued proposing to disallow the benefit under the notification and proposing recovery of Rs. 34,98,749/-. Duty exemption was extended to 5 items and disallowed in respect of 6 items, by the Asst. Commissioner of Customs, Cuddalore. Held that- Table to Notification No. 23/98, raw materials and parts falling under any chapter, for use in the manufacture of goods falling under Heading 89.01, 89.02, 89.04, 89.05 (except 8905.20) or 89.06, in accordance with the provisions of Section 65 of the Customs Act, 1962 are exempt from payment of duty. Therefore, set aside the denial of the benefit of exemption
-
2009 (12) TMI 346 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Refund Claim- Refund claim was rejected by the Deputy Commissioner on the ground of time-bar as the duty was paid in 1990 while the claim for refund was filed only in July’ 05 (reminder of the appellants was treated as claim for refund). The Deputy Commissioner’s order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals). Hence this appeal. Held that- The assessees shall have an opportunity to present whatever documents they have in their possession to discharge the burden of proof cast upon them that they have not passed on incidence of duty to their customers. Fresh orders are required to be passed after extending reasonable opportunity to the assessees of being heard in their defence. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand
-
2009 (12) TMI 343 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Re-import- Notification No. 158/95-Cus- Notification No. 94/96-Cus., dated 16-12-96- whether to the benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. was available to the importer under the DEEC scheme, while the goods imported by the respondents herein were under bond without payment of Central Excise Duty, covered by Sl. No. 1(d) of Notification No. 94/96-Cus. Held that- the benefit of Notification No. 94/96-Cus., the order of the Tribunal’s order is set aside and the order of the Commissioner of Customs restored. In the present case, the goods in question have been exported under the DEPB scheme in terms of Clause 1(d) of the Notification No. 94/96. Therefore hold that the benefit of Notification No. 94/96 has been rightly extended to the importers and accordingly uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
2009 (12) TMI 341 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Drawback brand rate- The appellants applied for fixation of drawback brand rate in respect of export made by them in respect of six consignments. In all the cases, the application for fixation of drawback was filed beyond the period of 60 days. The Commissioner in his impugned order rejected the application for condonation of delay and consequently the application for fixation of drawback rate also gets rejected. Held that- the appellant submits that in future, such delay would not happen thus lenient view should take. Therefore, direct the Commissioner to consider the application for fixation of drawback by condoning the delay. In the result, order refusing to condone the delay is set aside. Appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
2009 (12) TMI 280 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Smuggling- Penalty- In this case a Show cause Notice had been issued to the Appellant for smuggling the gold and jewellary from Singapore to India by misusing the benefits extended to passengers staying abroad for more than six months. The adjudicating Commissioner has absolutely confiscated the seized gold jewellery arid the seized foreign currency. He also imposed penalties of Rs.50,000/- each on the passengers in addition to pert- ally of Rs.10,00,000 on Shri G.V. Ramesh, Rs. 2,00,000/- on Shri Lakshmi Narayan and Rs.1,00,000/- each on S/Shri Parthiban, Kathiresan, Janaki Raman and Vijay. He has also confiscated 10,000 Singapore dollars seized from Shri Abirami Jewellery owned by Shri Ramesh and allowed redemption of the same on payment of a fine of Rs.1,50,000/-. The Toyota Quails car was also confiscated but allowed redemption on payment of a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-. Held that- Considering the fact that they were induced by Shri Ramesh and his associates to carry the impugned gold jewellery and foreign currency for a consideration and the consideration has been stated only to be Rs.2,000/- in the statements recorded from them as well as from the associates of Shri Ramesh separately, the penalty of Rs.50,000/- each imposed on them appears to be harsh on them. At the same time, the amount cannot be reduced to such an extent as to encourage them to commit the same wrongs repeatedly and it should also be deterrent enough to prevent other passengers to act as carriers. Hence, keeping both considerations in view, reduce the penalty in respect of the 11 passenger-appellants from Rs.50,000/- each to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each. In the result, the appeals filed by S/Shri G.V. Ramesh, Lakshmi Narayan, Kathiresan, Janakiraman and Parthiban are dismissed. The other 11 appeals filed by the 11 passenger-appellants are partly allowed by reducing the penalties imposed on them from Rs.50,000/- each to Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) each as indicated above
-
2009 (12) TMI 267 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Classification-Jurisdiction- The petitioner-company is carrying on business of manufacture and export of steel castings, forged assembly parts and other products including forgings to various countries in Europe and USA and has been awarded One Star Export House status by the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), Government of India, New Delhi. The petitioner manufactures/forges a stainless steel product called ‘raised hatch’/hatch’ used in barges for transporting goods over water. A notice was issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Customs & Central Excise, Lucknow Zone, Lucknow on 30-9-2008 to the petitioner company under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 to appear before the Commissioner of Customs, Kanpur and New Delhi for adjudication of the classification ion of ‘raised hatch’ being exported by the petitioner. The petitioner immediately took up the matter with DGFT giving all details about the manufacturing process undertaken by the petitioner and its job work. The petitioner filed a Writ Petition No. 369 of 2009 challenging the notice issued by the Customs and Central Excise, Kanpur in the High Court. Held that- it is find from the scheme of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 that whenever a dispute may arise as to the classification of the goods, other than its description, quantity and FOB value, the customs authorities have to refer the dispute for adjudication to DCFF under Section 13 of the Act. It is only if the DGFT as the licensing and also adjudicating authority decides against the licensee, that the customs authorities will get jurisdiction to confiscate and levy penalty on such goods. The writ petition is allowed. The order of the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Kanpur dated 30-3-2009 is set aside.
-
2009 (12) TMI 263 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Refund- Limitation- Export Obligation discharge certificate not produced and bank guarantee encashed. EODC produced later and refund claim rejected as time barred. Show cause notice not issued or adjudicated for failure to fulfil export obligation. Encashment of bank guarantee not treatable as duty payment. Impugned order granting refund sustainable.
-
2009 (12) TMI 258 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Natural Justice- plea that no notice needed before suspension of licence, not acceptable as opportunity to be given before passing order leading to civil consequences. Decisions relied on by revenue not holding opportunity to be given before passing order leading to civil consequences. Decision relied on by revenue not holding opportunity not to be given before suspension. No clear finding on role of CHA firm in impugned order. Tribunal Larger Bench holding post decision hearing to be given if action was required immediately. Stay order not implemented and instead application seeking modification filed. Held that- impugned order set aside. Appellate Tribunal’s order- order staying suspension of CHA licence passed on 12.10.2009. revenue seeking modification by filing application on 8.12.2009. Appellant contending that modification application filed only after letter written seeking implementation of stay order. Judicial discipline required Department to follow decision of Tribunal and implement it or file appeal before High Court. Application showing lack of application of mind by officers.
-
2009 (12) TMI 251 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Prosecution- Gold Smuggling- Merely because serious offence alleged, cannot be a ground to appeal against acquittal order. Acquittal by trial court after taking all circumstances into consideration and case against respondent being doubtful in the absence of independent evidence to corroborate statement. - Settled law that retracted statement cannot be the sole basis for conviction when not corroborated. No recovery effected from respondents - Car from where contraband seized, not belongs to respondents – Petition is dismissed
-
2009 (12) TMI 250 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Refund-Limitation- EDD of 4% paid subject to verification. Declared value accepted as transaction value after verification. Department stating that assessment final and refund claimed after six months. Time Limit for refund application from date of adjustment of 1% EDD on final assessment. EDD collected making assessment provisional and rejection of refund on time bar not applicable. Treating assessment as final and also retaining EDD against tenor of relevant order department circular. Impugned order set aside. Department directed to finalise assessment
-
2009 (12) TMI 233 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Prosecution- Petitioner sentenced to three years imprisonment for smuggling of 360 foreign marked gold biscuits. Second panchnama contended as not placed before sanctioning authority rendering sanction for prosecution invalid. No estoppel against plea of sanction and the same can be raised at any stage. Sanction accorded after due application of mind. Sanction order containing factual narration of case. Second panchnama for display of contraband to television media not a necessary fact to be put before sanctioning authority and not relating to gist of offence. First panchnama on recovery and seizure of gold relevant and same placed before sanctioning authority. Sanction not suffering from infirmity.
-
2009 (12) TMI 232 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Warehoused goods- Respondent is a company, operating a Duty Free Shop within the premises of Chennai Port. It has been granted a private bonded warehouse by the Commissioner of Customs for storing goods imported without payment of duty and permitted to sell such goods to international passengers and to members of the crew. On 8-7-2006, Central Industrial Security Force (CISF) personnel intercepted an army vehicle found to be carrying cigarette cartons and liquor bottles in bulk quantities. Accordingly, a show cause notice was issued, demanding a duty of Rs. 3,87,63,211/- on the entire goods sold to unauthorised persons. Interest on the duty amount was also demanded. It was also proposed to impose penalty on the respondents 1 to 7 in addition to revoking the licence to operate the duty free shop inside the harbour. Held that- show cause notice not to be issued without tangible evidences. Signature in bills for goods sold in duty free shop presumed as forged based on mere visual examination. Presumption vitiates proceedings unless reinforced with evidence. SCN alleging escort officers not accompanying goods to ship. Escorts officers posted on cost recovery basis and respondent duty free shop not liable for failure of Department.
-
2009 (12) TMI 231 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
EXIM-Metal scrap imports- Mettalic waste and scrap in unshredded and compressed form and metal scrap in loose form imported. DGFT Public Notice No. 18/2004-09, dated 21.10.2004 requiring pre-shipment inspection certificate applicable to present case. Requirement of proper certificate in public interest and to avoid import of arms and ammunitions. Goods shipped after 15.10.2004 in all impugned imports. Department to decide whether pre-shipment inspection certificate produced from branch office of specified agency is per FTP and Custom Circular. Goods already provisionally cleared based on High Court order and customs entitled to finalise provisional assessment and take action as per Custom Act, 1962. Relief sought for non-implementation of DGFT Policy Circular No. 19/2004-09, dated 18.02.2005 premature and misconceived and cause of action not arisen. Injunction granted before, vacated. DGFT Policy Circular No. 19/2004-09, dated 18.02.2005 stated as not applicable for goods shipped before 18.02.2005 and requirements of C.B.E.& C. Circular No. 56/2004-Cus, dated 18.10.2004 complied with. Commerce Ministry’s circular misread with Customs Circular by petitioner. Duty of Customs Department to inspect goods ministry. Importer required to satisfy requirements of circular issued by Commerce Ministry during Customs clearance.
-
2009 (12) TMI 119 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Export obligation discharge certificates- whether the customs authorities are justified in coercively collecting the custom duty demand with interest on the ground that the petitioner has not produced the export obligation discharge certificate (EODC), firstly the application for EODC filed by the petitioner are pending before DGFT and secondly the period of limitation for filing appeal before CESTAT against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) has not expired?
Held that – allow the writ petition by directing the respondent to return the amount of ₹ 2,85,47,277/- with interest at the rate of 6% per annum illegally collected from the petitioner from the date of realization till payment.
Registry directed to initiate contempt proceedings against the commissioner of customs (Pune) for illegal recovery.
-
2009 (12) TMI 39 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Import of goods under EPCG licence – Breach of contract - order of settlement commission – grant of immunity from payment of interest – held that - As party is excused of nonperformance, if it proves that nonperformance was due to an impediment beyond its control, and it could not have reasonably been foreseen by it at the time of making of the contract, nor could it have avoided or overcome it or its consequences. In other words due to act of god or act of nature, if the contract is frustrated party cannot be asked to perform the contract. The contract automatically stands determined and cannot be enforced through the legal process.- Assuming Mr. Jetly is right in his submission that Settlement Commission has no power to grant immunity from the payment of interest but in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Settlement Commission has no power to enforce the contract which is already frustrated or which does not exist in the eye of law
-
2009 (12) TMI 37 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Defect in appeal by revenue – while dismissing the revenue appeal, tribunal observed that, We have gone through the record on hearing from both the sides. We do not find any authorisation of the Committee to seek appeal remedy by the Revenue. We noticed that the law requiring a Committee to authorise an appeal to be filed came into force on 31.3.2005. It appears that the Revenue has made a very casual approach to cure the defect when there is law declared by Hon'ble High Court of Karnataka in the aforesaid case in the year 2007. Such an attitude of Revenue is not appreciable to allow further time when they know very well the law which permits to cure defect. Therefore, we dismiss the appeal with an impression that Revenue has made very casual approach – held that - A perusal of the file shows that the Revenue has proceeded on the premises that on 2.2.2009 it has been given time to cure the defect by 9.2.2009 as the next date fixed is 18.2.2009 . The aforesaid premise is factually incorrect as the appeals were dismissed vide order dated 2.2.2009 - In any case once the fundamental element of formation of opinion of filing the appeal is missing then no appeal is deemed to be instituted in the eyes of law - Ordinarily, we do not non suit the Revenue for a procedural lapse but this case is of such a nature that lapses one after the other have been committed. Therefore, the appeals are wholly without merit and are liable to be dismissed.
-
2009 (11) TMI 1003 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... so, whether, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the goods seized stood sold in breach of the terms and conditions mentioned in DEEC? 3. We express no opinion on the merits of the case. The High Court has dismissed the Tax Appeal only on the ground of delay without going into the merits of the case, hence, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for de novo consideration on merits in accordance with law. We once again reiterate that we express no opinion on the merits of the case. 4. The civil appeal is, accordingly, allowed.
........
|
