|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 110 of 110 Records
-
2011 (1) TMI 60 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand of duty - Appellants imported declared stainless steel scrap of grade 304 whereas the majority of the goods were found stainless steel sheets and strips - the Commissioner has confirmed the duty by revising classification of the goods and by enhancing the assessable value – appellant submits that almost 50% of duty was paid by them at the time of filing of bill of entry by treating the consignment as scrap - goods are liable to confiscation on the ground of mis-declaration – demand confirmed as not contested - confiscation of the goods (stainless steel sheets and strips as well as scrap) also upheld – Appeal disposed off
-
2011 (1) TMI 58 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Duty drawback - appellants made export under Free Shipping Bills as they were unaware of duty drawback entitlement of the subject goods which was available at the All Industry Rate of 1% on FOB value - request of the appellants for conversion of free shipping bills into drawback shipping bills has been rejected by the adjudicating Commissioner. Ld. Advocate states that in respect of a similar case, the appellants have been allowed such conversion vide the order of the Tribunal in the case of Cargill India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. CC,Visakhapatnam 2009 - TMI - 202101 - CESTAT, BANGALORE – order set aside and appeal allowed
-
2011 (1) TMI 56 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Redemption fine and penalty - Demurrage and detention charges – value of goods had already been loaded for Rs.4 lacs approx. on the Bill of Entry without assigning any reason or any valid ground for doing so by the adjudicating authority while assessing the customs duty - no allegation against the appellants and they having malafide intention as the description of goods was found to be duly tallied with the description mentioned in the Bill of Entry - appellate authority has followed earlier decision of the Tribunal in the case of Supreme Enterprises rejected the appeal filed by the Revenue and has taken into consideration the fact of loading of value and demurrage and detention charges incurred by the respondent - Revenue has not advanced any reasons to enhance the redemption fine or penalty - arguments cannot be made the basis for enhancing the redemption fine and penalty, as against specific reasons given by the Commissioner (Appeals) - no merits in the Revenue s appeal, rejected
-
2011 (1) TMI 33 - CESTAT, NEWDELHI
Enhancement of the value of the imported goods - matter remanded back to the original adjudicating authority for passing a reasoned speaking order.
-
2011 (1) TMI 32 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Three personal hearing (PH) dates by single letter - held that: - providing of three hearing dates by one letter of intimation is held not to be justified - matter remanded back for filing of defence reply and for de novo adjudication.
-
2011 (1) TMI 31 - CESTAT, NEWDELHI
Import of melting scrap of iron an steel - Concessional rate of duty - notification no. 21/2002 Cus dated 1.3.2002 - production of end-use certificates - Held that: - Inasmuch as the appellate authority held in favour of the assessees on the legal issue but has confirmed part of the demand on the factual aspect, we are of the view that such factual aspect should be verified by the original adjudicating authority and the assessees can be given an opportunity to contest the same. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority for verification of the fact of production/no-production of end-use certificates in respect of the disputed quantity.
-
2011 (1) TMI 22 - DELHI HIGH COURT
EPCG – Import of cars at concessional rate – show cause notice (SCN) issued for violation of conditions – Held that: - The statement made by the learned counsel for the Department of Customs is taken on record and it is directed that the two show cause notices dated 3rd May, 2010 should be adjudicated and decided within six weeks from the date copy of this Order is received by the Department of Customs. In case, the proceedings are dropped, the bank guarantees and the bonds given by the petitioner no.1 company or on their behalf, shall be released. In case the stand of the petitioner no.1 is not accepted, the bank guarantees and the bond shall not be invoked and enforced for a period of four weeks from the date of service of the adjudication order to enable the petitioners to file appeal or take steps to challenge the said order in accordance with law. The adjudication order as required, should be a speaking order dealing with the contentions and the pleas raised by the petitioners. Petitioners are also given liberty to file additional or further response along with documents within two weeks from the date copy of this order is received.
-
2011 (1) TMI 20 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Detention of goods – import of Cottonseed Oil – Held that: - Department directed to set samples of the subject goods seized to the Central Food Laboratory and obtain within one one week - if the report is in the affirmative, i.e., the Laboratory finds that, after re-processing, the goods will be fit for human consumption conforming to the standards of cottonseed oil prescribed in the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules, 1955, then the petitioner shall be permitted to reprocess the goods within one week from the date of receipt of the report.
-
2011 (1) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT
Requirement of specific licence at the time of import - importers, in the instant cases, did not possess the licence as required under the EXIM Policy. Additionally, in some cases, the quantity and price of the imported goods was mis-declared in the bills of entry - Held that: - it is for the party applying for reference to clearly state the question of law which he seeks to be referred to the High Court and then it is for the High Court to consider whether any such question of law stated in the application for reference before it should be directed to be referred - It is a trite proposition that unless the correctness of facts, on the basis whereof an inference is drawn by the Tribunal, is put in issue, a question of law does not arise from its order - a standard formula cannot be laid down for imposition of redemption fine and penalty - the High Court was justified in declining to issue direction to the Tribunal to make a reference under Section 130A of the Act.
-
2011 (1) TMI 7 - SUPREME COURT
Imposition of anti-dumping duty - imports of NTCF from China - manner of decision - principles of natural justice - Held that: -if one person hears and other decides, then personal hearing becomes an empty formality. In the present case, admittedly, the entire material had been collected by the predecessor of the DA; he had allowed the interested parties and/or their representatives to present the relevant information before him in terms of Rule 6(6) but the final findings in the form of an order were recorded by the successor DA, who had no occasion to hear the appellants herein. In our opinion, the final order passed by the new DA offends the basic principle of natural justice. Thus, the impugned notification having been issued on the basis of the final findings of the DA, who failed to follow the principles of natural justice, cannot be sustained. It is quashed accordingly. the appellants cannot claim refund of duty already levied in as much as they have not specifically challenged the findings of the sunset review, and therefore, the findings in relation to the existence of dumped imports, material injury to domestic industry and causal link between dumped imports and material injury to domestic industry remain unchallenged
....
|
