|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 859 Records
-
2010 (12) TMI 169 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Advance license - The consignment was inspected by officers of SIIB on 1.10.2004 and the same was seized as it appeared to the officers that the goods were liable to confiscation under the Customs Act - It is thus clear that the clearance on payment of duty is being sought after the customs authorities detected a fraudulent attempt to clear the very same goods without payment of duty under the advance licence scheme which would have gone through but for the timely detection by the customs authorities Consequently, since M/s. Sandip Exports are not claiming the impugned goods and have not cleared the same on payment of duty and redemption fine, the impugned goods having been confiscated shall vest in the Government
-
2010 (12) TMI 151 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation - Interpretion of Notification - Appellant had imported medical equipment duty free on the strength of certificate issued by DGHS - Commissioner of Customs (ACC), Mumbai passed order-in-original confiscating the goods under Section 111 (o) of the Customs Act with option for redemption thereof against payment of fine of Rs.2.00 lakhs and imposing a penalty of50,000/- on the importer under Section 112 (a) of the Act, apart from demanding duty of over76.00 lakhs from them - with the rescission of notification 64/88, there is no obligation on the part of the appellant after 1-3-1994 - Appeal is allowed Regarding interpretation of Notification - he life of the Notification 64/88 is the period from1-3-1988 to28-2-1994. In the present case, the appellants imported the goods on 9-1-1992. The point is, by virtue of import of medical equipments free of duty under Notification 64/88, the appellants are under obligation to fulfill the conditions of the Notification. The period of the obligation is from the date of import to the date of rescission of the Notification. The violation of the Notification may be noticed by the authorities either during the life of the Notification or afterwards. It is the contention of the appellants that if the violation of the Notification during the period of its life is detected after the rescission of the Notification, no action can be taken by the authorities. This interpretation is not correct. - Appollo Hospitals Enterprises Ltd. Vs. Union of India (2001 -TMI - 45972 - HIGH COURT of MADRAS)
-
2010 (12) TMI 148 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Refund - The importers supplied the goods to M/s.Quality Machine Tools Components who, in turn, supplied them to the Directorate of Purchase and Stores, Department of Energy - There is no dispute that the goods were supplied to public funded research institution under the administrative control of the Department of Atomic Energy - Exemption under Notification No.51/96-Cus allowed
-
2010 (12) TMI 144 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
EPCG scheme - The department was of the view that goods imported from M/s.Pharmaplan were over invoiced by way of including charges relating to certain services and utilities in the value of capital goods, in order to wrongly avail the benefit of Customs Notification No.111/95 dt. 5.6.95 as amended which is available to a manufacturer only when value of capital goods imported during the validity of import licence, is in excess of ₹ 20 crores - Assessee contended that the total value of plant and equipment imported against the licence in question was only ₹ 15,38,34,583 - Appeal is dismissed
-
2010 (12) TMI 143 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Refund - Bearings were shipped separately under two airway bills whereas the invoice was only one and the purchase order was also only one – The clarification that due to bad weather only one out of the three cases could be air freighted in the first shipment and the rest two cases were shipped subsequently - Normally no refund should be allowed unless the shortage is recorded in the presence of customs officials and before the out of charge from customs control is given - Hence, it is evident that the appellants have imported the three bearings under two airway bills but against only one invoice and have paid duty for the same under two respective Bills of Entry - appeal is allowed with consequential benefit to the appellants
-
2010 (12) TMI 141 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Target plus Scheme - It is not in dispute that VPIPL is a Star Export House. Para 3.7.4 indicates who can apply under the Target Plus Scheme - The Petitioner is aggrieved by the rejection on 23rd June 2008 of Ministry of Law and Justice to the Petitioner‟s contention that firm M/s. Polypacks Industries is a group company of VPIPL - No fault can be found with the decision of the Respondents in declining to extend the benefits of Target Plus Scheme to VPIPL and in refusing to treat the firm M/s Polypacks Industries as a "group company" of the VPIPL - Writ petition is dismissed
-
2010 (12) TMI 140 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Advance licences - M/s. Molex (India) Ltd., Bangalore (the respondent) had imported DC Plugs under two bills of entry without payment of duty by utilizing advance licence No.710005192 dt.17/8/2000and No.710006344 dt.22/11/2001 – Some goods were re-exported to the supplier through Customs House, Chennai without obtaining any permission from the Bangalore Customs or without intimating - The concerned licence has already redeemed after the respondents fulfillment of the export obligation which was required to be fulfilled against the advance licences - the question of allowing of re-credit does not arise since the licence has been redeemed
-
2010 (12) TMI 136 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Re-export of the goods - imported goods could be permitted to be re-exported when no offence was committed by the importer under the Act - no case that the respondent committed any offence in respect of the subject goods - main ground raised by the appellant that the appeal filed by the assessee before the Commissioner (Appeals) was not an appeal filed in terms of Section 128 of the Customs Act - re-export of the goods permissible in law and the same not prejudicial to the Revenue – Appeal disposed off
-
2010 (12) TMI 135 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Classification - The assessee had imported palm oil which was declared in two bills of entry as crude palm oil edible grade and in other bills of entry as others palm oil edible grade - At the request of the assessing authority, the Port Health Officer drew representative samples of the goods for being tested at the State Governments Regional Laboratory, Visakhapatnam - On the report of the laboratory assessing authority, after giving the assessee an opportunity of being heard, finalized assessments by classifying the goods as Crude Palm Oil (Other than edible grade) under sub-heading 1511 10 00 of the Customs Tariff Schedule and, accordingly, quantified the amount of duty to be paid by them at tariff rate (100%) - The duty so quantified was demanded under Section 28 of the Customs Act - It appears from the memo of appeals filed by the Revenue that the appellant is not inclined to accept the acid value reported by the State government laboratory - Crude palm oil is squarely classifiable under sub heading 1511 10 00 of the Customs Tariff Schedule and the same would not attract Sl. No.434 of Customs Notification No.21/2002 - Appeals are allowed by way of remand
-
2010 (12) TMI 134 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Shortage of capital goods and alleged clearances made to DTA without Development Commissioners permission – Department demanded the duty, interest and penalty - Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise, Visakhapatnam-II Vs. M/s. NCC Blue Water Products Ltd. - (2010 -TMI - 77633 - Supreme Court of India) would cover the issue in assessee favour - 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. The only question remains to be addressed is regarding the allowance of depreciation to the appellant - the depreciation has to be worked out till the point of payment of duty. Duty liability on Paddle Aerators is also set aside and the matter is remitted back to the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following principles of natural justice - The appeals are disposed of
-
2010 (12) TMI 133 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Anti dumping duty - earned advocate on behalf of the appellants submitted that in this case demand could not have been raised under Section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 - Appellant has been able to make out a prima-facie case in their favour as regards limitation as well as proposed demand - Accordingly the appellant is directed to deposit an amount of Rs.2.5 lakhs within six weeks and report compliance to Commissioner (Appeals) who shall decide all the matters afresh after noting compliance with the order of this Tribunal - Appeals and stay petition get disposed of by way of remand
-
2010 (12) TMI 129 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
DEPB Fraud - Penalty - Duty which was paid by way of debit entries on the basis of TRA has been demanded and penalty has been imposed on all the appellants - Found that in the reply to show cause notice appellants made specific request for supply of documents relied upon by the Revenue in the show cause notice - On the sole ground of non observance of principles of natural justice the matter is remanded to the original adjudicating authority who shall supply the relied upon documents and thereafter proceed to adjudicate the matter - Needless to say appellants shall be given reasonable opportunity to present their case before a final order is issued
-
2010 (12) TMI 128 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Citric acid monohydrate – medicinal or non medicinal use - It is stated that in an order dated 30th July 2010 followed by the observation dated 2nd August 2010, the Customs Department noted that the term BP-93 suffixed after Citric Acid Monohydrate indicated that the goods were of pharma grade and could be released only upon a no objection certification (NOC) from the Assistant Drugs Controller - it would be open to the Respondents to undertake surprise checks at the premises of the purchasers as disclosed by the Petitioner and further proceed in accordance with law, if it is found that the imported CAM purchased from the Petitioner by such retailers is in turn sold to others who use it for medicinal purposes - The bond and bank guarantee furnished by the Petitioner, as recorded in this Courts order dated 23rd November 2010, are hereby discharged - The writ petition is allowed
-
2010 (12) TMI 124 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Duty Free Scrip – Does the sale of a residential building against the payment in free foreign exchange amount to "service" for the purposes of the grant of a Duty Free Credit Entitlement Certificate - Petitioner was asked to submit the duty credit scrip dated 9th January 2006 and not to utilise such scrip further till clearance was received from the office of DGFT - Commissioner of Customs, ICG, Tughlakabad issued a show cause notice to the Petitioner on 23rd June 2008 demanding the customs duty of Rs. 7,62,55,947 - Hence their earlier letter has become irrelevant, particularly in light of the usage beyond the GATS filed Whether DFCE certificates are 'licences' under the FTDR Act - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires -(g) "licence" means a licence to import or export and includes a customs clearance permit and any other permission issued or granted under this Act - The DFCE certificates issued under the SFIS would indeed qualify as licences since they permit the holders of such certificates to avail of duty credit while making subsequent imports of freely importable goods – Held that the two DFCE certificates dated 4th February 2005 and 9th January 2006 are licences within the meaning of Section 2(g) of the FTDR Act - The writ petition is disposed of
-
2010 (12) TMI 120 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Duty on pilfered goods - Tribunal observed that no material change in the goods have been found at Alang between the first importer and the second importer - It was also observed that the reason for the value difference was not explained - In this case the original buyer withdrew from the sale and thereafter, the appellant entered into picture - The transaction value was genuine and the reduction was due to non availability of certain items and therefore the appeal has to be allowed and refund claim also has to be allowed - The Commissioner has considered the issue logically, cogently and has come to the correct conclusion by discussing all the aspects of the matter - Consequently the claim for reduction of value fails and therefore the impugned orders have to be upheld
-
2010 (12) TMI 97 - CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
CESTAT Member – Deemed confirmation - whether Member considered deemed to have been confirmed from probation after the prescribed one year of probation - provision existed for extension by two years, one year at a time, when the probation was extended towards the end of the third year, simultaneously for both the years; and whether the order of the Applicant’s discharge from service would be considered - Rule also does not say that the two years’ period of probation, as mentioned in the Rule, is the maximum period of probation and the probation cannot be extended beyond the period of two years – No deemed confirmation as per rules governing applicant – Instructions that shotcomings of probationer to be brought to his notice being administrative instructions, not create any right in his favor – Application dismissed
-
2010 (12) TMI 92 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Advance licence - duty free clearance - goods declared as alloy steel round bars - The goods were examined, whereupon it was found that a part of the goods was non-alloy steel. - Mis declaration - Held that: - It was found that the declaration of the goods as alloy steel was not prejudicial to the Revenue. It is also a fact found by the Commissioner that the importer produced advance licences for duty-free clearance of both alloy steel and non-alloy steel. In the event of such clearance not being allowed, the importer was ready to use DEPB scrips. In any case, any intent to evade any dues to the Revenue was not attributed to the importer. Such being the position of the importer, the CHA can hardly be held to have indulged in any commission or omission in the nature of abetment so as to attract Section 112(a) of the Act.
-
2010 (12) TMI 86 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Penalty - the grievance of the Revenue is that no penalty was imposed or less penalty was imposed on the respondents under the relevant provisions of the Customs Act - Held that: - It appears from the records that the 14 show-cause notices were issued to different parties including the present respondents on the basis of the results of common investigations. The Commissioner passed a common order in adjudication of these 14 show-cause notices. The Reviewing authority issued a common order reviewing the Commissioners order as against the present respondents. - The learned Commissioner, in the impugned order, neatly set out his findings in respect of each of the show-cause notices and arrived at distinct conclusions in relation to the respondents. This being so, the department should have raised specific grounds against the Commissioners order in relation to each of the respondents. The Revenue has dismally failed to meet this basic requirement of an appeal. It is all the more surprising that no specific relief was claimed in any of the appeals.
-
2010 (12) TMI 85 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
DIFA - Duty-Free Import Authorisation - The Chemical Examiner reported the GSM (grams per square meter) of the fabrics covered by the shipping bills dated 29.9.2006, 9.10.2006 and 1.11.2006 to be 95.7, 102.8 and 94.2 respectively. The department found the GSM values reported by the Chemical Examiner to be very low compared to those declared by the exporter. - Held that: - The appellant did misdeclare the GSM values thereby attracting Section 113(i) of the Customs Act. In other words, the appellant, by their commission, rendered the goods liable to confiscation. - Actual confiscation is not imperative for holding a person liable to be penalized under Section 114 of the Act. Liability of the goods to confiscation is enough for this. The goods in question, having been found liable to confiscation under Section 113(i) of the Act, were rendered so liable by the misdeclaration of its GSM by the appellant. The appellant, therefore, cannot escape the penal liability. - Quantum of fine and penalty reduced.
-
2010 (12) TMI 80 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Refund of SAD - Conditions of notification no. 102/2007 - Refund claim was rejected by the department on the ground of unjust enrichment - Held that: - As the appellants have obtained a certificate from Chartered Accountant confirming that the duty liability of SAD has not been passed on the buyers by the appellants, the same is sufficient as per the Boards circular no. 18/10 Cus dated 8.7.2010, the discharge the liability of bar of unjust enrichment and the bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable to the case of the appellants. Accordingly, the appellants are entitled for refund claim.
........
|
