|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 859 Records
-
2010 (12) TMI 1049 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE
Revision application – condonattion of dealy - drawback claims - claims rejected on the ground that claim had not been filed within the stipulated time of 3 months from the date of Let Export orders as prescribed under the Board’s Circular No. 57/95-Cus., dated 30-5-1995 - Held that:- let export order was given on 24-8-07 and 29-8-07 whereas the claim was resubmitted on the advice of department on 12-12-07. Even if the date of filing drawback claim is considered on 12-12-07 as contended by department, the same is with 6 months from the date of let export order, Commissioner (Appeal) has rightly condoned the delay and allowed the drawback claim, revision application is rejected
-
2010 (12) TMI 1048 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Whether assessment of duty under Section 17(2) read with the rules or provisional assessment under Section 18 is permissible solely on the basis of norms fixed by the Commissioner of Customs, Nhava Sheva ignoring genuine transaction value or the provisions of the rules – Held that:- norms cannot be mechanically applied, irrespective of genuineness of transaction value or value as may be arrived at as per statutory requirements. Normally, it is not for this Court to lay down the valuation in individual cases or to interfere with an order of assessment or appellate order on the issue of assessment of value but when valuation has not been fixed as per statutory provisions, petition allowed, matter remanded to the Assessing Officer
-
2010 (12) TMI 1046 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Import - import of specified goods at concessional rate of duty for manufacture of electronic connectors and harnesses, they imported various specified goods (inputs) - housings, terminals etc. were not specified as finished goods in the Notifications – allegation that appellant had misused the Notifications by availing the benefit of concessional rate of duty in respect of the imported goods and using these goods in the manufacture of “parts of connectors” which were cleared as finished goods, wilfully misstated/suppressed facts with intent to evade payment of appropriate Customs duty on the imported goods - appellant submitted that Rule 8 of the 1995 Rules did not confer jurisdiction on the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise to issue the demand notices; SCNs issued without obtaining prior approval of the Chief Commissioner of Customs or the Commissioner of Customs – Held that:- show-cause notices issued in the present case under Rule 8 ibid, by the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Central Excise for recovery of differential duty of customs from the appellant in respect of the goods imported by them and cleared on payment of duty at concessional rate in terms of the relevant Customs Notifications are without jurisdiction. The notices should have been issued under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act by the proper officer of Customs, show-cause notices were issued without jurisdiction, appeals stand allowed
-
2010 (12) TMI 1045 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Criminal Revision Applications - applicant submitted that the basis of conviction of the present applicant (A-2), is on the basis of the statement of the co-accused under Section 108 of the Customs Act also submitted that assuming that the statement of the present applicant is inculpatory, can conviction be based solely on such confessional statement – Held that:- statement recorded by Customs Officers under Section 108 of the Customs Act is admissible in evidence. The court has to test whether the inculpating portions were made voluntarily or whether it is vitiated on account of any of the premises envisaged under Section 24 of the Evidence Act, no reason to interfere with the concurrent findings arrived at by both the Courts below and the present Revision Applications deserve to be dismissed
-
2010 (12) TMI 1028 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Penalty - prohibited goods - goods imported without IEC Number - confiscation under Section 111 sub-clause (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that:- If it is the case of the Revenue that the goods imported by the respondents herein were prohibited goods due to non-availability of IEC number and would in turn be liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, Revenue should have issued a show-cause notice under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 proposing to confiscate the goods and for consequent actions like redemption fine and/or for imposition of penalty. In the absence of any such proposition, the Commissioner (Appeals) was correct in coming to the conclusion that there is no contravention of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1027 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Additional Duty of Customs (CVD) demnded - Misdeclaration - mis-classifying importing electrical apparatus under 8538 of CTA & CETA in the Bills of Entry without declaring their Retail Sale Price - Held that:- The impugned goods were basically electrical apparatus and were neither sold by weight or by measure - It was clear that if the RSP was available or known, the only appropriate course would be to adopt the RSP of the product for assessment, even though the same may not have been declared on the Bills of Entry - The duty demand was based on the RSP applied by ABB for each clearance upon sale of the imported products; there was no need to ascertain the RSP by other methods - it is abundantly clear that in the absence of such rules issued in terms of sub-section (4) of Section 4A of the CEA, there was no statutory machinery to determine the retail sale price in respect of goods manufactured and cleared by a manufacturer without declaring the RSP on such goods - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2010 (12) TMI 1026 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Amendment of documents - Refund claim was rejected on the ground that the assessees have not challenged the assessment - The Commissioner (Appeals) accepted the contention of the assessees that the case falls under ambit of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962, which provides for amendment of documents and, therefore, there was no requirement to challenge the assessment before claiming the refund - Held that:- Proper officer/assessing officer who assessed the duty was competent under Section 149 to permit the amendment in the Bill of Entry, and refund as result of amendment is permissible. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) has safeguarded the interest of the revenue by directing grant of refund only after the jurisdictional Central Excise authority confirm the quantity actually received by the assessees, no reason to interfere with the impugned order, which is accordingly upheld,appeal filed by the Revenue rejected.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1023 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
Revision Application - seizure of foreign currency - applicant deposited the personal penalty and requested to release the foreign currency after deducting the redemption fine - release of foreign currency was denied treating the application as time barred - Applicant has argued that AC/Dy. Commissioner of Customs (Refunds), C.S.I. Airport, Mumbai in his order-in-original No. DC/Ref/62/R/2010, dated 28-10-2010 has allowed refund after adjusting redemption fine amount. In the instant case also, he should have adjusted the redemption fine amount by deducting the same from the amount to be refunded - Held that:- Government observes that since there is no time limit specified by Commissioner of Customs in his order-in-original for redemption of currency, the said option is still exercisable. The impugned orders are set aside and Assistant Commissioner (Refund) is directed to allow release of equivalent amount of foreign currency in Indian rupees after adjusting the amount of redemption fine from said refundable amount, revision application is disposed off
-
2010 (12) TMI 1020 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Duty demand - Import - inadmissible exemption availed by the appellant - goods assessed to duty at the time of import in terms of Notification No. 13/81-Cus., dated 9-2-1981 and 123/81-C.E., dated 2-6-1981 on the strength of appropriate certificate of sponsoring authority. goods warehoused for manufacture in bond. At the time of issue of show-cause notice in 1998, the goods were lying in the warehouse - Held that:- Demand cannot be raised on warehoused goods unless they are removed from the warehouse. These were de-bonded in 2002. There is no proposal in the show-cause notice to invoke the provisions of Section 72 of the Customs Act invoked by the Commissioner in the impugned order, interest cannot be demanded on the warehoused goods in view of Notification No. 67/95-Cus. (N.T.) dated 1-11-1995 exempting interest accrued on the customs duty payable on the warehoused goods. Thus vacate the demand and allow this appeal.
-
2010 (12) TMI 1018 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Refund claim - assessee cleared the goods on payment of VAT and filed a refund claim in terms of Notification No. 102/07-Cus, the refund claim was rejected on the ground that the appellants has not made endorsement on the invoices as per condition 2(b) of the said Notification by the lower authorities - Held that:- As no SAD is shown in the invoice which amounts that the endorsement as per condition 2(b) of the Notification has been made by the appellants and as held in the case of Equinox Solution [2010 (12) TMI 74 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] the appellants are entitled for refund claim. Hence, the appeal is allowed
-
2010 (12) TMI 945 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Confiscation - Cancellation of licence - violation of principles of natural justice - maintainability of the writ petition - Held that:- The principle is well established that no writ would ordinarily lie if there is an effective and efficacious alternative remedy provided by the statute itself - Where the aggrieved party has an alternative remedy the High Court would be slow to entertain a petition challenging an order of a taxing authority, which is ex fade with jurisdiction - thus the High Court was right in dismissing the writ petition directing the Appellant to avail the statutory alternative remedy - it is well-settled that writ jurisdiction is discretionary jurisdiction and when there is an alternative remedy, ordinarily a party must resort to that remedy first before approaching this Court
Regarding cancellation of licence - Held that:- There is no dispute that while submitting explanation to the Show Cause Notice, the Petitioner did ask for personal hearing & there is no dispute that in response thereto the Respondent gave personal hearing on 19th March, 2010 when the Petitioner's sales executive Sri G.V.S. Kondala Rao appeared - The Adjudicating Authority granted more than three adjournments and when none appeared on 16th September, 2010, on behalf of the company, the incumbent Commissioner passed the impugned order. Thus it convincing that "reasonable opportunity" was not denied to the Petitioner. Alleged denial of natural justice is not reason enough to bypass the alternative remedy and approach this Court. As it is within the discretion of the High Court whether to exercise the jurisdiction or not. In this case, it is not a case where discretion under Article 226 of Constitution ignoring Section 122A of the Customs Act is to be exercised - writ petition is dismissed
-
2010 (12) TMI 897 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Waiver of pre-deposit - classification - application software was intended to operate the hardware incorporating the operating software and this combination was intended to operate the Relieving Lathe Machine. - The first item was classified under Heading 84.58 and the other two items under Heading 84.71 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act. The assessing authority wanted to classify items (ii) and (iii) also under 84.58 as part of Relieving Lathe Machine. - held that:- Conspicuously, the description of these goods is prefixed with “CNC”. Both sides have expanded this term into 'Computer Numerically Controlled'. - Prima facie, the Relieving Lathe Machine, whose description is prefixed as above is not capable of being manually operated. Apparently, it could be operated only with the accompaniments. The classification proposed by the assessing authority is, prima facie, correct - Considering the plea of financial hardships raised by the learned counsel, appellant directed to pre-deposit only a part of the duty amount
-
2010 (12) TMI 826 - JHARKHAND HIGH COURT
Second Notice - Extended period of limitation - in view of the Supreme Court decision in the matter of Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise v. Charminar Nonwovens Ltd., (2004 -TMI - 46963 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court considered that there was an earlier decision and yet in subsequent matters the notices were issued. The Hon’ble Supreme Court was of the view that such notices can be issued and not liable to be challenged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In view of the findings of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in its decision, the argument of the learned counsel for the petitioners that by the decision of the Commissioner the issue had already been settled and it operates as issue estoppel, does not stand to reason because doctrine of issue estoppel does not apply in this case. The Investigation of facts in the matter that whether the notices are sustainable or not, should better be done by the department authorities and we, in that view of the matter, refrain from interfering in the matter of issuance of notice. It would not in fitness in observing against the department that it has no jurisdiction to issue the notices. The petitioners would be at liberty to go before the department and join issue there. - Petition dismissed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 780 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Imported 40 containers - samples did not match with the PFA standards - If that be so, obviously, the petitioner cannot require the first respondent to permit clearance of the goods - Therefore,direct the second respondent to draw representative sample from the containers in which the goods in question are remaining in the wharf, send the same for analysis in the Central Food Laboratory, Mysore and get their report in the matter - It is directed that once the report is received as above, such report will be conclusive and the respondents will take further action based on the findings in the report - It is directed that until the aforesaid exercise is completed, the goods in question shall not be auctioned or otherwise disposed of - Thus, writ petition is disposed off accordingly.
-
2010 (12) TMI 730 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Duty drawback - Notification No. 27/2002-Cus., dated 1st March, 2002 - On a plain reading of sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules, it is apparent that what is required under the said rule is that a claim for drawback under the Rules should be filed in the form at Annexure II within three months from the date on which an order permitting clearance and loading of goods for exportation under Section 51 is made by proper officer of customs where the exporter challenges the order made by the proper officer, he would not be in a position to file a claim within the period prescribed under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 of the Rules in which case, if he ultimately succeeds in appeal, his claim would become timebarred. - the present case is a case where a claim for drawback had been filed pursuant to an order made by the proper officer as contemplated under sub-rule (1) of Rule 5 and not pursuant to an order made by an appellate authority as contemplated under sub-rule (5) of Rule 5 of the Rules - in the absence of any stay order having been obtained, it is not permissible for the respondent No. 5 to withhold the drawback claim of the petitioner on the ground that a revision application has been filed against the order of Commissioner (Appeals) - Petition is allowed
-
2010 (12) TMI 719 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Confiscation - Notification 44/2002 dated 19-4-2002- Capital Goods imported under EPCG Scheme at concessional rate and later on sale it or not used for said function - Concessional rate of duty at 5% on capital goods imported under valid license issued under Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme - customs department later found that the respondent notified cars for sale in complete violation of the conditions on which respondent was allowed to import cars at concessional rate of 5% as against 160% payable - the contention of the respondent that requirement of registration of the vehicles as tourist taxi vehicles under Section 66(1) of the M.V. Act is not mandatory under the notification and under the bond conditions until the clarification issued in Exim Policy on 14-6-2006, to our mind is absurd - The clarification dated 14-6-2006 issued by the DGFT is not going to save the respondent, because they have no case that cars were used for rendering services to the foreign tourists coming to hotel. - the portion of the foreign exchange earnings from the two Presidential suits referred to in the adjudication order should be attributable to the foreign exchange earnings out of the use of the two cars, no matter they were allowed to be used by the foreign tourists in violation of the provisions of the M.V. Act and Rules. - Appeal is allowed by way of remand
-
2010 (12) TMI 698 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Advance license - Notification No. 149/95-Cus., dated 19-9-1995 - According to the petitioners, as per the export-import policy, the clubbing of obligation under the licence is also permitted - A close reading of these two provisions would go to show that the appeal can be entertained by the appellate tribunal if only pre-deposit is made, when such payment of pre-deposit is a pre-condition for entertaining appeal, if no pre-deposit is made then, there shall be no appeal in stricto sensu on the file of the Appellate Tribunal for passing any order - if at all the petitioners have any grievance regarding the orders passed dispensing with only 25% of the demanded amount under Section 129-E of the Act, the petitioners would have done well by challenging the said orders in the manner known to law provided they were of the view that they had a valid ground under Section 129-E of the Act to get pre-deposit of the entire duty amount demanded dispensed with - In the result, both the writ petitions are dismissed
-
2010 (12) TMI 598 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Free shipping bills - CBEC Circular No. 4/2004-Cus., dated 16-1-2004 - It does not take into account the right of an exporter under Section 149 of the Act to apply for amendment of shipping bill on the strength of pre-existing documents - The proviso stipulates that no such amendment be permitted in a shipping bill after exportation of the goods except on the basis of documentary evidence which was in existence at the time of exportation - The question to be considered in the instant case is whether the export documents in any way supported the exporter’s claim for amendment of the shipping bills - This conversion can be permitted only on the strength of an advance licence issued by the licensing authority on or before the date of filing of the relevant shipping bill - If they intended to claim the export incentive, they would have filed the shipping bills after obtaining the advance licence. In this circumstance, I am not inclined to find fault with the finding of afterthought recorded by the Commissioner - In the result, the Commissioner’s order is sustained and this appeal is dismissed
-
2010 (12) TMI 596 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Demand - Notification No. 224/85-Cus., dated 9-7-1985 - A demand cum show cause notice therefore, was issued to the appellant to pay the differential customs duty of Rs. 10,94,765/- for non-production of end use certificate, which was confirmed vide OIO dated 21-6-1995 - there is no condition as regards the production of end use certificate or satisfaction of the Central Excise authorities as regards use of imported material in the leather industry - Held that: appellants have a good prima-facie case in their favour so as to dispense with the condition of pre-deposit of duty - Decided in favour of the assessee by way of remand Commissioner(A)
-
2010 (12) TMI 522 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Regulation 16(2) of CHALR, 2004 read with Regulation 17(2) of CHALR, ‘84 - Customs House Agent Licence was in the name of the Firm which is proprietorship of Mr. Sivaji Basu. Mr. Sivaji Basu died on 26-1-2004 - Even for Private Limited Company to qualify as CHA the requisite examination is required to be passed as provided under Regulation - Licence regarding which the appellants seek validation is valid upto 2005 only - Appeal is dismissed
........
|
