|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1198 Records
-
2009 (11) TMI 978 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... e the Commissioner of Customs, Trichy vide his order dated 28.3.2001 has imposed redemption fine of ₹ 2.50 lakhs and imposed a penalty of ₹ 50,000/- under Section 112A of the Customs Act in a case involving duty amount of ₹ 36,38,536/-. The learned counsel fairly states that the appellants, to the best of his knowledge, have not appealed against the said order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Trichy dated 28.3.2001. We are of the view that in the light of the uncontested order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Trichy, the redemption fine of ₹ 3 lakhs imposed in this case requires to be confirmed. We order accordingly. However, as regards the penalty, we set aside the penalty imposed under Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 and direct that a penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only) be imposed on the appellants under Section 112A of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal is otherwise rejected. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 961 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... order of non granting of permission is not a speaking order and which would be better if the matter be remanded back to the Commissioner to pass a speaking order. 3. Heard. 4. After hearing the submissions of both the parties, I find that the order of the Commissioner is not a speaking order. Accordingly, the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner of Customs (E) Nhava Sheva, to pass an appropriate order on the application for grant of factory stuffing permission for stuffing of export cargo after hearing the appellant within two weeks of the communication of this order. 5. With these directions the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner of Customs (E) Nhava Sheva. (Pronounced in court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 939 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... having reg to the issue raised and argued by the Petitioner as to the authority of the First Respondent to pass an order. o p /o p Consequently, the Writ Petition is allowed, thereby the order impugned is quashed. Learned Counsel for the Petitioner pointed out that in W.P.M.P. No. 1616 of 2005 in this Writ Petition by the order dated 20th January 2005, this Court while granting interim prayer, directed the Petitioner to deposit a sum of Rs. One lakh with the Third Respondent within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of that order, failing which the injunction granted will get automatically vacated. o p /o p 9. In view of the order passed allowing the Writ Petition, the amount deposited by the Petitioner, hence, has to be refunded to the Petitioner. Consequently, the Third Respondent is directed to refund the amount deposited pursuant to the directions of this Court to the Petitioner. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P. No. 1616 of 2005 is closed. o p /o p
-
2009 (11) TMI 931 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Classification of imported item - data projectors - classified under Tariff Item 8528 61 00 or under 8528 69 00? - benefit of exemption under N/N. 24/2005-Cus. dated 01.03.2005 - Held that: - when separate entries were created under heading 8528, they are appropriately covered under 8528 61 00 which is applicable to the projectors of a kind solely or principally used in an automatic data processing machine, instead of the residual entry of 8528 69 00.
India is a signatory to the Information Technology Agreement. The classification adopted by the Customs officers for these projectors has resulted in the frustration of the ITA in relation to these products. Thus, the object of the exemption N/N. 24/2005 - Cus. is frustrated. Consequently, Indias undertaking to the WTO is also annulled. Hence, the impugned order is not sustainable.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2009 (11) TMI 928 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Misdeclaration in duty drawback shipping bills - On examination of the consignment it was found to be “semi-finished” “burinishable finished leather” as against the declaration that it was finished leather - Held that: - in an identical situation in the case of Sri Shanmuga Prima Tannery Vs Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2003 (9) TMI 785 - CESTAT, CHENNAI], the Bench accepted the contention of the appellants that the leather was finished leather, although a lesser protective coat with dye/pigment was applied - appeal allowed - decided in favor of assessee.
-
2009 (11) TMI 902 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Sudden increase in the price of phosphatic nutrient - concession provided by Government - rates of concession
-
2009 (11) TMI 893 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... 9 of the Act and had been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 11 years besides fine. 85. The word „may‟ used in Section 20 gives a discretion to the court which has been ascribed by the Legislature as regard the awarding of sentence. This discretion which has been vested with the Court, has to be exercised legally, properly and reasonably and not arbitrarily or disproportionately. 86. In the instant case the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 16 years to A-1 appears to be excessive and on the higher side. This Court is of the view that ends of justice would be well met if the sentence of RI for 16 years is reduced to RI for 13 years. No modification is made in the fine imposed. Similarly, while maintaining the conviction of A-2 his sentence of RI for 11 years is reduced to the minimum i.e. RI for 10 years. No modification is made in the fine imposed. 87. With these directions, appeals are disposed of. (INDERMEET KAUR) JUDGE 5th November, 2009 nandan
-
2009 (11) TMI 881 - SUPREME COURT
Whether the order of detention passed by the detaining authority under Section 3(1)(i) of the Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 be sustained?
Whether the respondents can prove satisfactorily that there is propensity and potentiality of the appellant to engage in smuggling activities in the future, if set free?
Whether the impounding of the passport of the appellant so as to prevent him from leaving the country will suffice in satisfying the object sought to be achieved by passing the detention order?
-
2009 (11) TMI 878 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... re granted necessary permission for coastal run. At that stage the proper officer could have imposed a condition that duty should be paid on the same but that has not been done. Hence we are of the view that the appellants have not contravened the provision of Section 111(j) of the Customs Act, 1962. Coming to the provision of Section 111(f), we find that it applies for not manifesting dutiable and prohibited goods. In this case the appellants did manifest the impugned tug though as a vessel coming on ballast. Hence we are of the view that this is not a case of omission to manifest the impugned tug and Section 111(f) cannot be said to be attracted in this case. In view of the fact that only these two provisions have been cited by the adjudicating Commissioner for confiscating the impugned tug and imposing penalty and in our view both these provisions are not applicable in this case, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 813 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... hat the duty burden was passed on to M/s. Century Enka Ltd. The case law cited by the learned SDR does not permit such a course of action. The uniformity of price would not by itself constitute a ground for holding that the incidence of duty had not been passed on to the customers. Other evidentiary materials are also required to hold that the duty burden had not been passed on. The Balance Sheets produced by the party pertained to a period subsequent to the final settlement of the classification dispute. Curiously, any Balance Sheet for the prior period was not produced by the party in order to show that the amount covered by the refund claim was being reflected as ldquo dues from the Customs rdquo in their accounts throughout. Thus, in my view, the party did not succeed in discharging their burden of proof under Section 27 read with Section 28D of the Customs Act. 5. In the result, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 800 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... le which was found to be wrong as the goods were classifiable under Heading No. 62080201. The claim for a heading under the drawback schedule other than the one ultimately found to be applicable to the goods in question cannot be considered to be a misdeclaration for the purpose of holding that the goods are liable to confiscation which view finds support from the decision of the Tribunal holding that claim for classification of the goods other than under the heading/headings ultimately held to be applicable by the Customs authorities/Excise authorities does not amount to misdeclaration so as to warrant confiscation. The Commissioner (Appeals) also noted that it is the primary task of the proper officer to scrutinise the shipping documents for sanction of drawback to check whether the correct heading of the drawback schedule has been given by the exporters. In this view of the matter, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 799 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... riginal equipment is satisfied in this case, we are of the view that the appellants can be extended the benefit of the exemption under Notification No. 72/93, as claimed by them. As regards the interest, the appellants are required to pay the same from the date of clearance till the date of payment of duty in terms of the bond executed by them. However, taking note of the fact that the interest rates have been subsequently reduced to 15 under the Exim Policy and the same is applicable to the pending cases, we order calculation of interest 15 in this case also. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal by extending the benefit of Notification No. 72/93 to the appellant PSU and also allow their prayer for calculation of interest 15 . For the limited purpose of calculating the duty amount and the interest amount, the matter is remitted to the original authority. 4. The appeal is allowed in the above terms. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 788 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... lications filed by the appellant seek stay of operation of the impugned orders wherein refund of Special Additional Duty paid by the respondent under sub-section 5 of Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act was held to be admissible to them in terms of Notification 102/2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007 read with the Board rsquo s Circular No. 6/2008 dated 28-4-2008. On a perusal of the above Notification, as amended by Notification 93/2008-Cus. dated 1-8-2008, we do not find any sufficient reason to stay the operation of the impugned order. Learned DR has argued against grant of the refund on the ground that, on the date of filing of Bill of Entry, the exemption notification was not in force. We find that the exemption notification itself provides for refund of SAD paid by an importer contingent upon post-importation sale of the goods. It prima facie appears from this scheme that the refund is admissible to the respondent. These applications are therefore, dismissed. (Dictated in Court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 786 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... pect of consignment in question. 2. The contention of the Revenue is that the respondents failed to produce that the consignment was not received. The Revenue relied upon the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Bombay High Court in the case of Metal Distributors Ltd. v. Union of India reported in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 229 to submit that the short landing of goods is to be proved on the basis of Certificate issued by the Port Trust Authority. It is also submitted that nothing has been produced from the exporter in respect of non-shipment of consignment in question. 3. I find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order gave a finding on the basis of Certificate issued by Kolkata Port Trust and on the basis of insurance claim which were received by the respondents. There is nothing on record to show that the consignment in question was received. In the circumstances, I find no infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 779 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... 2010 (250) E.L.T. 377 (T) . Now, the only three consignments valued at Rs. 25,000/- were remained un-claimed. The Hon rsquo ble High Court in the case of Suresh Kumar Nyollywalla (cited supra) held that the transporter is liable for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 in case the owners of goods not disclosing their identity to claim confiscated goods nor they charging transporter for non-delivery of goods. In view of the above decision, I find that the appellants are liable for penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act in respect of three un-claimed consignments. As the total value of consignment is Rs. 25,000/-, therefore, penalty of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) will meet the ends of justice. Penalty is reduced to Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only) on the appellants. The appeal is disposed off as indicated above. The appellants are entitled for consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 778 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... tent and sodium content permissible for mono potassium phosphate has also been specified. We find that no sample of the consignment imported by the assessee was got tested in the department rsquo s chemical laboratory to ascertain the identity of the goods. In the circumstances, there can hardly be an adverse inference against the assessee. Further, going by the description of the Heading 3105, we find that mineral or chemical fertiliser containing phosphorous and potassium are specifically covered by SH 3105 60 00. The Revenue has no case that the goods imported by the respondent is not of a kind used as fertiliser. The goods contained both phosphorous and potassium. It satisfies the description of the above sub-heading. Chapter Note 6 in Chapter 31 also supports the respondent rsquo s claim for classification of the goods under Heading 3105. This, however, is our prima facie view. In the result, the stay application filed by the appellant gets dismissed. (Dictated in Court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 776 - CESTAT KOLKATA
... ...
... ... ..... g ornaments. During arguments a specific query was made to the Appellant, who appeared in person, whether the Appellant was regularly sending the gold to Shri Ajay Sarraf for making ornaments. The Appellant replied that it was the first time he has sent the gold for making ornaments. In these circumstances as the persons from whom the gold was recovered that too from their rectums had not challenged the findings of the adjudicating Authority regarding recovery of the gold at land customs station. The present Appellant claimed the gold only in reply to the show cause notice and during investigation had not made any such claim though summons were issued to the Appellant. The claim of the Appellant is also not sustainable on the ground that Shri Ajay Sarraf to whom the gold was sent denied this fact and though he was related to the Appellant. In these circumstances I find no infirmity in the impugned orders and Appeals are dismissed. (Pronounced and dictated in the open courts.)
-
2009 (11) TMI 773 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... f the case records and the submissions made by both sides, we find that the impugned consignment was subjected to assessment of export duty Rs. 300/- per MT as against Rs. 55/- per MT for the reason that the iron content ascertained in the consignment was not below 62 . The same was found on test to be 62.1 by the Chemical Examiner, Central Revenue Laboratory, Cochin. In the circumstances, we find that the Commissioner should have allowed the request of the exporter to have a re-test of the sample drawn, by the CRCL, New Delhi. We find that the impugned order has been passed in violation of principles of natural justice. Accordingly, we vacate the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner to take a fresh decision after a sample of the consignment already drawn is got tested by CRCL, New Delhi. Needless to say that the exporter shall be heard before such a decision is taken. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand. The stay application also gets disposed of.
-
2009 (11) TMI 765 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... s, it was open to the adjudicating authority to impose a fine under Section 125 in lieu of confiscation of the goods. The fine imposed in this case is Rs. 1,81,406/- against the value of the goods, of Rs. 7,25,624/-. The fine amounts to 25 of the value, which in my view is harsh in the facts and circumstances of this case. I reduce it to Rs. 72,500/-. The penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority appears to be equal to the fine determined by the said authority. I have found no nexus between the quanta of fine and penalty anywhere in the text of Section 112 of the Act. Apart from this, I do not think that this is a fit case for such penalty as imposed by the authority. I am of the view that, in the facts and circumstances of this case, a penalty of Rs. 5,000/- would serve the ends of justice. It is ordered accordingly. The impugned order shall stand modified to this extent with regard to quanta of fine and penalty. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (Dictated in Court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 758 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... er and the denomination as per the claim of the appellant which was in his possession. Thus the evidence relied upon by the appellant before the authorities were found to be unreliable, inconsistent and not creditworthy. It was claimed that the foreign nationals wanted the sale proceeds of land in foreign currency. However, no evidence of the alleged land deal has been submitted. It is basically an attempt to mitigate the offence of attempted illegal export by Robert Olivier. Therefore, there is abetment on the part of the appellant in the offence of attempted illegal export of foreign currency by Robert Olivier. We also do not find any reason to interfere with the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) in rejecting the claim of ownership of the currency under confiscation. However, taking into consideration all the facts and circumstances, the penalty imposed is reduced from Rs. 3 lakh to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). 7. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
........
|
