|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 859 Records
-
2010 (12) TMI 503 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Confiscation of goods - Penalty - Customs House Agent - Clearing the goods against bogus/fictitious Advance Licenses and violation of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 - The Tribunal has found that though there was some contravention on the part of the assessee in following the procedure envisaged under the Customs House Licensing Rules, there was no evidence on record to show any knowledge on the part of the respondent that the advance licences in question were forged - Hence, the Tribunal has held that there was no justifiable reason to impose the penalties on the respondent -The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2010 (12) TMI 498 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty - The alleged misdeclaration was not due to the any omission or commission on the part of the appellant, and apparently it was a mistake on the part of third party namely, pre-shipment inspection agency - It is also noticed that mis-declaration, did not result in any evasion or violation of licensing regulation - Thus, the explanation offered by the Inspection Agency appears acceptable - Held that: there is no justification for confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty on the appellants - The appeal is allowed in favour of assessee.
-
2010 (12) TMI 470 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Confiscation of imported goods - Prohibited goods - The goods in question are classifiable under 0307 of the Customs Tariff regarding which there is no dispute and as per Import Export Policy there is no restriction in respect of import of such goods - In the main ground of the Revenue is that the Wild Life Authority is the Competent Authority to implement Wile Life (Protection) Act and the Authority recommended the confiscation of the goods hence liable for confiscation - Find that the Import Export Policy will govern the conditions restrictions of the import export of the goods and as per the Import Export Policy the goods as classifiable are not restricted or prohibited goods - Hence find no infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal is dismissed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 459 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Duty drawback - It is settled legal position that in the absence of any order of a higher forum staying an order made by a quasi-judicial authority or judicial authority, as the case may be, such order is required to be complied with by the concerned authority - in the present case, as the appeal preferred by the revenue has been heard and decided and as such the respondent has no cause or reason for not complying with the order of the Tribunal - the learned advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner has invited the attention of this Court to a circular dated 30th March 2000 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, New Delhi whereby the Commissioners have been directed that on Electronic Data Interchange (EDI) system, the drawback claims should be cleared within 3 working days and in manual cases, within 5 days - the petition is allowed
-
2010 (12) TMI 455 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Drawback - Brand rate of drawback - application was rejected since the delay in filing the application for fixation of brand rate was made beyond the period of limitation, i.e. 90 days from the date of expor - the respondent No. 2 has sought to take shelter behind a very hyper technical plea, namely that in the present case he was deciding the application pursuant to directions given by the High Court to dispose of the application under Rule 6 of the Rules and as such could not consider the plea to fix the Brand rate under Rule 7 in accordance with the Drawback Rules - The respondent No. 2 has also raised another specious plea to the effect that the plea is hit by limitation - As recorded by the Additional Commissioner in the case cited hereinabove, there is no substantial difference in the format of the application whether under rule 6 or rule 7 of the Rules. As regards the plea being hit by limitation, the High Court in writ petition had already condoned the delay caused in filing the application. In the circumstances, merely because there was a change in nomenclature, inasmuch as instead of treating the application as one under rule 6, the respondent No. 2 was required to consider the same under rule 7 of the Rules, the same would not attract the bar of limitation as the application is the same - The impugned order of the Joint Commissioner, therefore, cannot be sustained.
-
2010 (12) TMI 433 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Demand along with penalty and interest - Limitation - Suppression - The respondent-assessee, a 100% EOU, debonded its imported capital goods after obtaining necessary permission from the Development Commissioner - assessee had filed the bill of entry No. OFL/Debonding/01/2003-04, calculating the Basic Customs Duty @ 5% amounting to Rs. 6,90,875/- on the capital goods availing exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-CUS, dated 1-3-2002. - non-mentioning of the serial number under which the goods would fall - Held that: it cannot be said that there was any wilful misstatement or suppression on the part of the assessee so as to invoke the extended period of limitation - The Tribunal, was therefore, justified in holding that the show cause notice was time-barred and that no case was made out for invoking the extended period of limitation - Thus, there being no infirmity in the impugned order of the Tribunal, the same does not give rise to any question of law - Hence, the appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2010 (12) TMI 408 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Demand of duty - 100% EOU - The shrimps cleared to DTA without permission of the Development Commissioner - The duty liability on the DTA clearances of the shrimps allegedly done by the appellant, it is seen that the relevant period in this appeal is 1994 to 1997. During the relevant period, provisions of Section 3(1) were not amended - even if goods, are removed without permission of Development Commissioner, the duty liability arises on the assessee is of the excise duty and not the customs duty.During the relevant period, there was no excise duty on the shrimps which were cleared in the local market, hence, there cannot be any duty liability. As Regards the shortage of the capital goods - Allowance of depreciation - Regards duty liability of the appellant on capital goods, the duty liability is not be disputed by the assessee, as they were admittedly found outside the EOU premises - The only question remains to be addressed is regarding the allowance of depreciation to the appellant - As per Final Order in the appellant’s own case, the depreciation has to be worked out till the point of payment of duty - This order needs to be followed in by the Adjudicating Authority and hence, in order to re-quantify the amounts as per our direction in the appellant’s own case,set aside the demands confirmed by the Adjudicating Authority on the capital goods and remand the matter back to him for considering it in accordance with the directions and law.
-
2010 (12) TMI 406 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Waiver of pre-deposit - Misdeclaration of the value - Prima facie the case of gross misdeclaration of the value by the appellants is evident on the face of records - There is no explanation forthcoming from the appellants as to how they could insure the consignments for a value which is ten times higher than the value they have declared to Customs authorities - The learned Advocate also does not have any details to support his claim that the lower values declared to Customs authorities are genuine on the face of higher values declared to insurance authorities and accepted by them for the insurance purposes - Further, the adjudicating Commissioner has taken into account the confessional statements made by the appellants themselves under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the same are clearly admissible as evidence since neither the statements have been retracted nor any complaint has been made to anyone that these were not voluntarily given . Hence, determined the pre-deposit amount to the extent of roughly 1/3rd of the differential duty amount as voluntarily agreed on behalf of the appellants in those cases.
-
2010 (12) TMI 397 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Penalty u/s 112(a) - Regulation 5(3) of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998 - the consignee or a Customs House Agent on behalf of the consignee, may file a Bill of Entry in the form prescribed in the Bill of Entry (Forms) Regulations, 1976 for clearance of any of the imported goods - the courier should advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act and Rules and Regulations made thereunder and, in case of non-compliance thereof, should bring the matter to the notice of the Assistant/Deputy Commissioner of Customs - the original authority chose to penalise the courier on the ground that the courier did not advise the consignee/importer to furnish IE Code. On the facts of this case, it was the CHA who could have advised the importer. - Decided in the favour of the assessee
-
2010 (12) TMI 381 - SUPREME COURT
Demand - Renewal of bank guarantee - Time limitation - all the contentions that could be raised by the appellant before the Adjudicating authority could again be urged which shall be considered afresh by the Adjudicating Authority and thereafter pass a fresh order in accordance with law giving detailed reasons for its decision - the appellant shall keep the bank guarantee alive till the adjudicating proceeding is completed - The appeal is disposed of
-
2010 (12) TMI 375 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Duty drawback under Rule 7(1) - Brand rate - Condonation of delay - Circular dated 9th December 2003 - The circular had been occasioned in the light of difficulties faced by exporters in obtaining EP copies of shipping bills - Thus, the findings recorded by the Commissioner that the rules do not provide for furnishing EP copies of shipping bills along with the application for fixation of brand rate of drawback does not appear to be correct inasmuch as though the rules may not specifically provide for furnishing copies of EP shipping bills, it appears that under the checklist below circular dated 6th March 2003 referred to hereinabove, copies of EP shipping bills are required to be attached along with application for fixation of brand rate of drawback - The circular would be binding on all the officers of the Government, and therefore, the Commissioner was not justified in brushing aside the same stating that the Ministry has not stated that delay should be condoned in all the cases irrespective of whether the case is covered by the criteria/yardstick given in the relevant legal provisions. Held that: thus, the Commissioner was not justified in rejecting the application on the ground that the respondent has failed to prove that they were prevented by sufficient cause from making applications within the time-limit inasmuch as copies of shipping bills were not required to be filed along with the applications - The impugned order of the Tribunal is sustainable.
-
2010 (12) TMI 350 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Recovery of demurrage charges - The petitioner seeking recovery of demurrage charges for the containers which remained in the premises of the Kandla Port since the petitioner could not clear the goods on auction of inspection being carried out by the Customs Authorities - Containers remained idle in the port premises for considerably long time and beyond statutory period permitted for clearance - It was open for the Kandla Port Trust to recover demurrage charges - Fact that the petitioner could not clear the goods on account of detention by the Customs Authorities would not change the situation - If at all, the petitioner was of the opinion that such detention was unauthorized, illegal or frivolous it can proceeded against the Customs Authorities - Kandla Port Trust cannot be asked to waive their charges for delayed clearance of the goods - Hence, petition is disposed of.
-
2010 (12) TMI 336 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
DEPB - Confiscation - the BARC’s report is authentic and hence there is no room for doubt - The alternative test reports produced by the appellant admittedly pertain to samples drawn by themselves without involving the department. Whether the redemption fine of Rs. 3.6 lakhs imposed by the Commissioner can be considered to be reasonable - The fine imposed by the Commissioner appears to be around 15% of the value of the goods, which cannot be considered to be unreasonable - The Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.25 lakhs on the appellant under Section 114 of the Act, which works out to 5% of the FOB value of the goods - Appeal is dismissed
-
2010 (12) TMI 326 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation - REP licence - TV Broadcast 85 Studio Equipment - Hon’ble High Court of Bombay has considered the import of the items in question in ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Versus UNION OF INDIA [2010 -TMI - 78225 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Held that:- the items imported are the capital goods as covered under REP licence which was permitted to import under para 177(2) of AM 1988-91 - goods are not liable for confiscation, hence redemption fine and penalties imposed on the appellants in the impugned order are not warranted.
-
2010 (12) TMI 303 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Demand - Search and Seizure - Classification - Confiscation - Misdeclaration of quantity and value - Manipulation of invoices - The transaction value of goods covered by Bill of Entry No.436656 had to be determined by resorting to Valuation Rules covering import of identical or comparable goods - There was no evidence other than the statements of Shri Velu Chandrasekar for mis-declaration or under valuation in respect of imports made under the past Bill of Entry No.320364 dt. 20/5/2002, No.394234 dt. 12/12/2002 and No.416047 dt. 10/2/2003 - The employees of M/s. MAA Logistics have maintained that the invoice in question was prepared at the instance of Shri Velu Chandrasekar based on the particulars conveyed to them on phone and based on a format he had faxed earlier to them - The goods covered by the Bill of Entry are therefore liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Act As regards valuation of NIKKALITE brand Retro Reflective Sheet the authorities relied on a quotation issued by the manufacturer M/s. Nippon Carbide Industries Co., Japan for shipment to Singapore - Even though the assesee/appellant furnished particulars of similar goods imported from several countries no particulars were furnished in respect of import of identical or similar goods - Duty due towards goods cleared under the B/E has to be re-quantified as regards the NIKKALITE brand Retro Reflective Sheet Regarding confiscation - There is no evidence except the retracted admission that goods were not adhesive paper but NIKKALITE brand Retro Reflective Sheets - There is also no reliable evidence that the invoice covering this import was fabricated - Decided in the favour of the assessee Once the department proves that something illegal had been done by the manufacturer which prima facie shows that illegal activities were being carried, the burden would shift to the manufacturer - if the department proves that the trucks crossed the barriers carrying some cylinders for which no record was maintained in the factory nor any excise duty was paid then the presumption can be drawn that the trucks were carrying cylinders as per the capacity of the trucks - It is a basic common sense that no person will maintain authentic records of the illegal activities or manufacture being done by it - the appeals are disposed of by way of remand
-
2010 (12) TMI 301 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Waiver of the pre-deposit - Export Obligation - Find prima facie that it is a case of gross abuse of the duty concession which has been granted to the appellants in respect of as many as 106 advance licences in the interest of export promotion - The appellants to fulfil their export obligation after making duty-free imports and also to obtain the necessary EODC - Without fulfilling the export obligation and without furnishing the necessary export details and EODC to the Customs authorities, the appellants cannot take a stand that the duty demand is not valid under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - It is settled law that when post-importation’, conditions are violated, the duty demands are valid under the conditional notifications read with Section 12 of the Customs Act, 1962 under which the levy is made - The bonds executed by the appellants themselves also require payment of the duty amounts for violation of the conditions of the notification as well as non-fulfilment of the export obligation. - stay application allowed partly.
-
2010 (12) TMI 226 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Undervaluation - Misdeclaration - The appellants claimed assessment of these goods as component parts of photocopiers and filed Bill of Entry No.490522 dated 14.5.2003 with the customs authorities, accordingly - The Chartered Engineers subsequent to the inspection issued a report dated 13.6.2003 indicating that the items under reference are fairly complete photocopiers with few external parts missing - Consequent to the directions given by the High Court, the appellants arranged for inspection of the goods by M/s. Best Mulyankan Consultants Ltd on 25.7.2003 - Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying for issuance of a writ of mandamus - After the receipt of the report, the respondents are at liberty to issue a show cause notice and proceed further in accordance with law - Accordingly writ petitions are disposed of the appellants were only directed to get a report from M/s. Best Mulyankan Consultants Ltd., Mumbai and to submit the same within a week of the Honrable High Courts order to the customs authorities - The major difference between the reports of two Chartered Engineers was that M/s. Best Mulyankan Consultants Ltd., Mumbai could not reconfirm the model numbers - On comparison of the two Reports it thus appeared to emerge that the Report issued by M/s. Superintendence Company ofIndia(Pvt.) Ltd., Chennai was more specific in that the model numbers had been categorically identified with the help of a technical expert - The value assessed by M/s. Superintendence & Co., which was close to the evidence collected by the department for the full used second hand machine therefore appeared to be correct and reasonable Regarding misdeclaration - Honrable Supreme Court in the case of Collector of Customs, Calcutta Vs. Sanjay Chandiram 1995 (77) ELT 241 (SC) which held that Rule 3 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 providing for acceptance of transaction value is not a rule of invariable application regardless of the circumstances - In cases of misdeclaration the irresistible conclusion would be that if the real value of the imported goods has not been shown in the invoices, then the declared value cannot be taken as the transaction value - Accordingly the appeal is dismissed
-
2010 (12) TMI 206 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
CHA license - mis-declaration - license has been suspended on the basis of investigation, on the ground that appellant had allowed someone else to use his license for fraudulent activities - no evidence to show that the blank shipping bills duly signed were handed over - Custom officer has not verified as to who had signed the shipping bills on behalf the CHA and even check-list is not available, which could have helped to verify who had signed the same - suspension for eight months is sufficient and further continued suspension without an enquiry to ascertain the truth and also without giving proper opportunity to the appellants, is not warranted – order set-aside and suspension revoked - department is free to conduct the enquiry and if warranted punish the CHA – Appeal allowed
-
2010 (12) TMI 201 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
CHA - appellant admitted that appellant had forged the signatures and this was not part of his work - appellant was only an employee of CHA firm appellant was only an employee - financial position and status of the appellant, learned advocate requested that penalty of Rs. 50,000 imposed is very harsh and while admitting that penalty is imposable, he seeks substantial reduction - appellant got Rs. 1500/- only as consideration for which he forged the signatures of an unknown person - some leniency as regards penalty warranted – Penalty reduced to Rs. 10,000/-
-
2010 (12) TMI 173 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Appeal - rejected on the ground of delay in filing appeal - appellant submitted that the partner has not at all received the Order-in-Original - signature of partner available in the original acknowledgement produced by the Revenue, are very similar and look as if signed by the same person, whereas the signatures of partmer in the latest papers are totally different - acknowledgement was obtained by jurisdictional Range officer and unless proved otherwise, it has to be held that partner who is stated to have signed the acknowledgement, has signed it - order of the Commissioner rejecting the appeal on the ground of delay in filing the same, upheld
........
|
