Home Case Index All Cases Customs 2010 2010 2010 (7) Customs - 2010 (7) 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 61 to 70 of 70 Records

• 2010 (7) TMI 198 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Release of goods – Bank guarantee – Order seeking bank guarantee assailed on the ground that authorities empowered to demand surety or security in the nature of bond and not bank guarantee. Held that – discretion cannot be said as exercised improperly when petitioner required to furnish security by way guarantee. Provisions permitting order to deposit 20% of differential amount provisionally assessed and request for furnishing bank guarantee in lieu of such amount rejected. Impugned order upheld.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 190 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Stay – Import of Container – Secondary evidence produced before Tribunal earlier and Tribunal remanded matter for consideration of same. Commissioner rejected computer print out on ground that it was not secondary evidence. Provision of Section 138C of Custon Act 1962 not taken note of by Commissioner. Held that- assessee expressly or tacitly admitting that they could not establish re export of eight containers. Thus the appellant liable to pre-deposit 1/9th of duty amount. In event of compliance, rest pre-deposit waived

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 186 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Release of documents - Let Export Order given on 22.12.2009 and duty @ 5% paid on 23.12.2009. loading of vessel commenced on 20.12.2009 and completed on 25.12.2009. Rate of duty increased to 10% w.e.f. 24.12.2009 and Department seeking additional duty. Petitioner contending that duplicate/exchange control copy of shipping bill and statutory declaration form not provided. Held that – rate of duty and valuation applicable as prevalent on date of let export order. Demand need to be raised finalization assessment, if additional duty sought to be recovered. Documents cannot be withheld after issue of let export order. Document to be released.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 183 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
  

  Jurisdiction - The Order in Original came to be made by Additional Collector of Customs under the provisions of the Gold Control Act, 1968 (the Act), against which an appeal was preferred before the Central Excise & Gold Control Appellate Tribunal (as it then was). The Tribunal vide its order came to the conclusion that an order made by Additional Collector of Customs was amenable to appeal only before Commissioner (Appeals) and not before the Tribunal. Held that- section 81 permits filing of appeal before Tribunal against order made by Collector as adjudicating authority. Adjudicating authority means an authority competent to pass order and Additional Collector covered thereunder. Collector of custom includes additional collector. Tribunal ought to have heard appeal. Matter remanded to Tribunal for deciding appeal on merit.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 181 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
  

  Release of goods- The respondents to provisionally release the goods on execution of full value bond of the goods and on payment of 25% of the value of the goods in cash as “security”. It appears that the learned trial Judge while passing the impugned judgment and order has observed that in identical matters authorities had directed provisional release of the goods on execution of the full value bond of the goods and on payment of 25% of the value of the goods in cash as cash security. Held that- discretion excised by trial judge not arbitrary. Impugned order sustainable. Sample required for adjudication to be preserved before release of goods.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 143 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Non appearance – appeal dismissed by the tribunal – restoration of appeal – Held that: - In the application for restoration moved by the appellant does not deny that the appellant knew about the date of hearing, i.e., 28.10.2009. No valid reason at all is given for non-appearance. - appellant came to know that the appeal is dismissed for non-appearance on 28.10.2009, no immediate steps were taken by filing the application for restoration. Instead, the appellant waited till December, 2009 to file the application which was also got listed only in February 2010. This also gives an impression that the appellant was waiting for change of Roster/Bench and got the application listed only in February 2010 because of this reason. - the appellant is a Chartered Accountant and the allegation against him is that he had held that M/s Himgiri Overseas and M/s Deepshikha Overseas in making a false claim for duty drawback - The entire case based on the facts that no substantial question of law arises. - The proceedings are nothing but misuse of process of law.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 67 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Appeal against the order of Chief commissioner of Customs – CCC has acted as adjudicating authority – Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 – Held that: - under Section 129-A an appeal is maintainable against the order of the Chief Commissioner of Customs while exercising the power as a Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication). - the order of the Tribunal in refusing to entertain the appeal filed against the order in Original No.173/2001-CAU dated 17.10.2001 is liable to be set aside and accordingly the same is set aside.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 66 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Refund – unjust enrichment – chartered accountant’s certificate – evidence – Held that: - the Tribunal has committed an error in merely relying upon the certificate produced by the first respondent without taking into consideration of the fact that no evidence has been produced for considering the claim of refund. - the certificate issued by the Chartered Accountant along with other evidence such as Profit and Loss Account are sufficient evidence to consider the claim for refund. The said Judgement cannot be construed to lay down the proposition of law that the certificate issued by the Chartered Account would automatically enable the person to get exemption in the absence of any other evidence to support that he is entitled to refund.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 42 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS
  

  Nature of Import – CKD versus SKD [complete knocked down versus semi knocked down) – import of parts / components of motorcycles - The said parts are proposed to be packed into motorcycle kits. - In general all the parts, components and sub assemblies required to build a standard order quantity of motorcycles would be shipped together. The vehicles would be assembled in India by fastening the various components together in a predefined sequence of operations. The operators will use a combination of hand tools (wrenches, sockets, screw drivers, etc.) and power tools (electric or pneumatic wrenches, nut drivers, drills, guns etc.) in assembling the vehicles. No other process such as machining, fabrication, stamping etc is proposed to be undertaken with respect to imported parts and components. Routine quality checks would be performed during the assembly operations and motorcycles would be released for distribution after final vehicle inspection. – Held that: - The import of motorcycles ‘Sportster-XL883N’ and ‘Softail-FLSTC’ in the form of components, parts and sub assemblies as per the lists filed by the applicant would constitute import of motorcycles in Completely Knocked Down form provided the engine and the transmission assemblies are designed to be housed and are so assembled in a single housing. – Eligible for concessional rate of duty

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 20 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Classification - Import of (i) PXI Controllers, (ii) Input/Output Modules (also known as Modem or Control/Adaptor Units) (iii) Signal Converters (iv) Chassis and its parts - The importer claimed the items to be computers and/ or parts of computers. - In the circumstances, the Original Authority (O.A.) has broadly classified embedded Controllers, Programmable Automation Controllers ("PACs"), Data Acquisition Boards, Digital Input Output Boards, PXI Chassis etc. under Chapter 90. The O.A. has rejected the classification sought by the importer under CTH 8471. - Held that: - . In our view, in order to attract Note 5(E) the real test is whether or not the machine imported is performing a specific function relatable to the functional unit as a whole. The said machine should be seen as a System. As a functional unit, the imported machine should perform a function other than data processing or it should perform a function in addition to data processing. In our view, Industrial Process Controllers and I.O. Modules, which are part of a functional unit, the function of which is to be judged as a whole are therefore classifiable in Chapter 90. - order of tribunal set aside - decided in favor of revenue

  ---

1234