|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 859 Records
-
2010 (12) TMI 1356
... ...
... ... ..... R. DAVE, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1335
... ...
... ... ..... would appear that the baggage includes unaccompanied baggage but does not include motor vehicles. Here, this baggage is completely different from the currency notes. Therefore, the learned Tribunal has not decided wrongly that baggage can be synonymous with the currency notes though Smt. Sarkar wants to persuade in other way. When the case proceeds on the basis of baggage it has to be understood whether the subject matter was baggage or not. The subject matter was Indian currency. We therefore uphold the decision of the learned Tribunal and accordingly answer the questions referred to in the manner as follows (1) Question no. 1 In the affirmative. (2) Question No. 2 In the negative. In view of the above decision, we direct the department concerned to implement the order of the learned Tribunal passed earlier as to what amount shall be released after deducting the amount of redemption fine and penalty. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. There will be no order as to costs.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1275
... ...
... ... ..... e sanction for prosecution of respondent was given by the sanctioning authority in a mechanical manner and it was not stated as to what material was considered by the sanctioning authority at the time of grant of sanction and how sanctioning authority came to know about the actual facts of the case. The learned ACMM had passed a similar order in another case which was assailed before this Court in Crl. Rev. P. 305 of 2010. This Court vide order dated 25th October, 2010 2011 (263) E.L.T. 513 (Del.) , found that the order passed by the learned ACMM was patently illegal. The judgment of this Court in Directorate of Revenue Intelligence v. Mohd. Anwar squarely covers this revision petition. The order dated 17th May, 2010, passed by the learned ACMM, discharging the accused is set aside for the reasons given by this Court in the aforesaid judgment. 2. The parties are directed to appear before ACMM concerned on 7th January, 2011. The learned ACMM shall proceed with the trial.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1273
... ...
... ... ..... t I am afraid that the said submissions cannot be appreciated at this stage. A high revenue stakes are involved in this case and the offence is of a serious nature, where there is a prima facie material to show evasion of customs duty to the tune of ₹ 11.18 crores. Further, though the Petitioner has been given an opportunity to appear before the Investigating Agency, but he has failed to avail such opportunity. He had not responded to the summons issued earlier by the Enforcement Officer. The apprehension raised by the Respondent that the Petitioner may hamper the progress of the investigation cannot be ignored. The claim made by the Respondent that custodial interrogation of the Petitioner is necessary requires consideration as the investigation seems to be at early stage. 21. In view of the reasons stated above, I am not inclined to grant the relief of anticipatory bail to the Petitioner at this stage and accordingly, this Criminal Original Petition stands dismissed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1247
... ...
... ... ..... ns raised in the respective appeals filed by the present appellants, the ld. advocate appearing for them volunteers to pre-deposit an amount of 15 of the penalty amount on each of the appellants for which they require 8 weeks. Accepting the offer of the appellants, we direct pre-deposit of 15 of the penalty amount imposed on each of them within 8 weeks from today and report compliance on 11.2.2011. Subject to compliance with the above direction, pre-deposit of the balance amount shall remain waived till the pendency of the appeal. (Dictated in Court)
-
2010 (12) TMI 1246
... ...
... ... ..... appear before the first respondent along with the materials on or before 21st December, 2010. On such appearance, the final assessment or liability of the appellants shall be made by the respondents. The tax paid and the Bank guarantee furnished, pursuant to the order passed today, shall be adjusted according to the requirement of final assessment orders. The respondents are further directed to make provisional assessment within a period of three days from today. 10. However in W.A.No.2048 of 2010 there are two appellants and it is brought to our notice that in so far as the first of the said appellants is concerned a final assessment order has been passed on 23.11.2010 and therefore the appeal, in so far as the said first appellant is concerned, has become infructuous and it is open to the first appellant to pursue such remedies, which are available to him under law, if he is, in any way, aggrieved by the final order of assessment. The Writ Appeals are disposed of as above.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1244
Waste - The stand of the appellants is that under the rules known as Hazardous Wastes (Management, Handling and Transboundary Movement) Rules 2008 framed pursuant to the powers conferred on the Government of India under the various provisions of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986, the goods imported by the respondent are suspected to be hazardous wastes falling under the Entry A-1180 of Part A and Entry B- 1110 of Part B of III Schedule appended to the above mentioned Rules.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1221
Detention of son of appellant - smuggling of gold - violation of Section 8 (c) of the COFEPOSA or not? - it was not the case of the detaining authority at any stage that the detenu would be able to continue with his smuggling activities within India, though he could not go abroad his passport having been seized - appeal allowed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1215
Provisional release of seized ship - Held that: - provisional release order would be passed as expeditiously as possible and in any event within a period of seven days from today.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1163
... ...
... ... ..... senior counsel being assisted by Mr. Rohit Ranjan, learned counsel for the appellant seeks leave of this Court to withdraw the appeal to approach the licencing authority for amendment of the licence. The appeal and pending applications are dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1157
... ...
... ... ..... ) Kolkatta, 2009 (244) ELT 108 3. As such, we find no infirmity in the impugned order passed by the lower appellate authority. As there is no substance in the appeal filed by the department, we dismiss the appeal filed by the department. Miscellaneous application for early hearing bearing No.C/EH/1166/10 filed by the department and the miscellaneous application bearing No.C/1779/10 filed by the respondent for transfer of case from the Division Bench to Single Member Bench for shifting of the case also stand disposed of. (Dictated in Court)
-
2010 (12) TMI 1151
Detention of machinery - EPCG Scheme - detention on the ground that respondent did not fulfil the export obligations and exported only 1.5 per cent - Whether in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal is correct in holding that the order of confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty' is not correct, since it was beyond the control of the importer to fulfil export and there is no deliberate attempt to avail of N/N. 169/1990 making any misdeclaration? - Held that: - the machinery was installed at the factory and production of goods was also started in March, 1994 and that they could only meet the export obligation to the extent of 1.5 per cent. only and that the Department did not allege the first respondent-company made deliberate attempt to avail of the benefits and concluded that there was no material to doubt about the first respondent's bona fides. Therefore, the Tribunal based on the aforesaid facts held that there was no mens rea and further held that the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty is not sustainable. Hence, the finding of fact given by the Tribunal cannot be interfered with and therefore the first question of law is answered against the appellant.
Whether the Tribunal is right in holding that interest on duty foregone under N/N. 169/1990 cannot be demanded since there is no provision in the Customs Act, 1962? - Whether the duty foregone would be only a duty when there is a failure to fulfil the conditions stipulated in the exemption notification? - Held that: - The notification prescribed various conditions for availing of benefits. However it is seen that there was no provision in the notification to levy interest on the duty. Though the learned counsel for the appellant referred sub-section 18(3) of the Customs Act and contended that the importer is liable to pay interest as per the rate fixed under section 28AB of the Act, the same is liable to be rejected in view of the judgment of the hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs (Import) v. Jagdish Cancer Research Centre [2001 (8) TMI 113 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA].
Circular No. 5/1997-Customs, dated March 14, 1997, which postulates interest at the rate of 24 per cent. as specified in relevant notification is not applicable to this case as the said circular would be applicable prospectively from March 14, 1997 only.
A perusal of section 143 would reveal that it speaks about the advance licences relating to import of input and raw materials for manufacture and export. Paragraph 197 in Chapter XIV of the Duty Exemption Scheme for the Import and Export Policy (April, 1990 to March, 1993) speaks about advance licences. Whereas the first respondent's licence is covered by the EPCG scheme. The import of capital goods at concession rate of the customs duty was done by the first respondent as per paragraph 197 of the Import and Export Policy 1990-93. Therefore, section 143A is not applicable to the present case.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1140
... ...
... ... ..... ceeded on the premise that LCPL imported 100 gms. of ‘Mifepristone’ in February, 2002. Neither the show-cause notice nor the impugned order presents a clear picture on the nature of import of 100 gms. of chemical ‘Mifepristone’. We hope, the learned Commissioner will clarify the position in de novo proceedings. 11. In the result, we set aside the impugned order and allow these appeals by way of remand with a request to the learned Commissioner of Customs to pass afresh a speaking order after examining all issues in the correct perspective. It will, incidentally, be open to him to examine the question whether the legal heirs of the deceased N.P. Jajodia are liable to be penalised under Section 112 of the Customs Act in the event of the deceased being found liable to such penalty. Needless to say that the appellants should be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard. 12. Both the appeals stand allowed by way of remand. (Dictated in Court)
-
2010 (12) TMI 1135
... ...
... ... ..... gned goods have been used for road construction in the public sector which seems to be the principal purpose of the exemption notification. The department has not alluded to any evidence that the impugned goods have been put to any other use. There is also no contest to the submissions by the appellants that one of the machines has not been parted with by them. Under the circumstances, the offer made by the ld. counsel to pre-deposit an amount of ₹ 22 lakhs against the machinery which is not in the control of the appellants and which was parted with by the appellants to the bank appears to be acceptable for the purpose of hearing the appeal. 6. We accordingly direct the appellants to pre-deposit an amount of ₹ 22 lakhs within a time period of 8 weeks sought for by the ld. advocate. Compliance is to be reported on 11-2-2011. Subject to compliance with the above direction, pre-deposit of the balance amount shall remain waived during the pendency of the appeal.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1131
Suspension of CHA licence - certain violations noticed on the part of the CHA in connection with the filing of 10 shipping bills, all of which were filed in December, 2008, some on behalf of one exporter and the rest on behalf of another exporter - Held that: - we reject the proposition that the action taken by the Commissioner under Regulation 20(2) is an administrative action. A Larger Bench of this Tribunal had held long ago that the suspension of CHA licence by a Commissioner of Customs (licensing authority), pending investigations against the CHA, was an action with civil consequences for the CHA and hence of a quasi-judicial nature. The larger bench also held that a CHA, whose licence was suspended with immediate effect without hearing, was to be given post-decisional hearing in accordance with the rule of natural justice. It is this view which was accepted by the legislative authority and incorporated in Regulation 20 through the amendment under reference. Therefore, it cannot be gainsaid that the suspension order of the Commissioner is a quasi-judicial product rather than administrative - application allowed - decided in favor of applicant.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1128
... ...
... ... ..... e as it is not disputed that the goods have been short shipped and the appellant has paid duty on the goods which has been short shipped. Moreover, the appellant has been able to prove the confirmation of short supply of the goods from the supplier, hence relying on the decision on Manipal Power Press (supra), the refund claim is maintainable. 8. In the light of the Board’s Circular No. 24/2004, dated 18-3-2004, the Board itself has clarified that in case of short shipment of goods, refund claim of excess duty paid by the assessee is maintainable. Hence, the decision of Priya Blue (supra) is not applicable to the facts of the case in the light of the decision of High Court in the case of Board of Trustees of the Port of Mormugao (supra). Accordingly, the refund claim of the appellant is maintainable on both the counts. 9. In the light of above discussions, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed with consequential relief. (Dictated in Court)
-
2010 (12) TMI 1126
... ...
... ... ..... to the appellant and penalty was set aside”. In the case of Radha Kishan Bhatia (supra) the Hon’ble High Court has held that the person who gets the possession after importation, even if with knowledge of their smuggled character, ipso facto cannot be said to be so concerned. In this case, it is clear from the facts that the appellants were not involved in any activity of importation or registration of the vehicle at the first time that is when the vehicle was registered in the name of Mrs. Dhillon. The appellants have dealt with vehicle after duly verification from the police records and registration authority. The department also failed to bring any corroborative evidence on record that the appellants were having the knowledge that vehicle is a tainted one. On mere presumptions penalty cannot be imposed. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the impugned order the same is set aside by allowing the appeals of the appellants. (Pronounced in Court on 9-12-2010)
-
2010 (12) TMI 1124
... ...
... ... ..... to kindly assess our bill of entry under protest and issue us a speaking order.” 7. It becomes clear from the above that assessment at the higher price was not acceptable to the assessee and a request to pass assessed bill of entry on enhanced value was made under protest with a request to pass speaking order. In such a scenario it was not proper for Commissioner (Appeals) to reject all the appeals on the sole ground that there was no requirement on the part of the assessing officer to pass a speaking order, giving reasons for enhancement of the value. 8. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to original adjudicating authority to pass appropriate, reasoned and speaking orders for enhancing the assessable value. Needless to say that the appellants are at liberty to raise all the legal issues before the original adjudicating authority. 9. All the appeals are allowed by way of remand. (Pronounced in Court on 31-12-2010)
-
2010 (12) TMI 1118
Benefit of Notification No. 21/02-Cus - Suppression of facts - Concessional rate of duty - Penalty u/s 114A - Confiscation of goods.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1115
... ...
... ... ..... of inputs was available without the importer having to establish nexus between the imports and the export products.” 5. While reaching the above conclusion, the Tribunal relied upon a Division Bench decision of this Court in Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Salem Stainless Steel, reported in 2001 (131) E.L.T. 30 (Mad.), which took the view that when all the goods were imported under the valid licence without any obligation of export, which was already discharged, there was no question of the authorities to insist on nexus between the goods imported by the subsequent importer and the goods exported by the original licensee. 6. Having regard to the above conclusions made by the Tribunal, which were mainly based upon the Division Bench decision of this Court, we do not find any scope to entertain this appeal, as there is no question of law, much less substantial question of law arises for consideration. Appeal fails and the same is dismissed. No costs.”
........
|
