Home Case Index All Cases Customs 2011 2011 2011 (1) Customs - 2011 (1) 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 80 of 110 Records

• 2011 (1) TMI 597 - CESTAT, AHEMDABAD
  

  Litigation between Ministries and Public Sector Undertakings of Government - The applicant being a Public Sector Undertaking, is required to produce a certificate of clearance from the committee of Secretaries - The applicant is at liberty to pray for re-opening of the matter on production of the clearance certificate in terms of the decision of Hon ble Supreme Court in case of Oil and Natural Gas Commission Vs Collector of Customs, Kolkata [1994 -TMI - 43712 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Since enough time has passed and no such certificates have been submitted, we close the matter(s) for statistical purpose.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 568 - KERALA HIGH COURT
  

  Notification 27/2002 issued on 1-3-2008 - Goods were not re-exported within the time limit stipulated in the notification - Proceedings were initiated and at that stage petitioner claimed the benefit of Notification No. 27/2008 issued on 1-3-2008 - Rejecting petitioner claim, Ext. P6 order was issued under Section 115 of the Customs Act - Held that:- the Customs Act 1962 itself provided the remedy available to the litigant against an order in the nature of Ext.P6 - The time provided for such remedy has expired and the petitioner lost his right of appeal - Therefore by recourse of proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner cannot now get a time barred cuse of action resurrected and on that basis challenge Ext. P6 at this distance of time - Therefore, writ petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 523 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA
  

  Refund - Advance license - Notification No. 21/2004-C.E. (N.T.), dated 6-9-04 or Notification No. 93/2004-Cus dated 10-9-04 - since the applicant has exported the goods under Advance Licence and as per the condition of the Advance Licence mentioned above, the applicant is not entitled for rebate claim of duty paid on inputs used in the manufacture of finished goods under Rule 18 of Central Excise Rules, 2002 and hence the sanction of the rebate claim is erroneous and is required to be recovered from the respondents - In the instant case, the respondent in addition to material imported under Advance Licence had also procured various input material used in the exported goods locally and claimed rebate of duty paid on inputs - Government herein is in conformity with the views of Commissioner (Appeals) in this case that such benefit of rebate of duty paid on indigenous materials/inputs used in addition/alongwith impugned duty free material for the manufacture of resultant product exported in discharge of export obligation as per condition of para (v) of the Notification No. 93/2004-Cus., dated 10-9-04, is not admissible to applicants - Application is rejected

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 513 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Condonation of delay - Confiscation - Provisional clearance of goods on execution of bond - Rule 7 of the Project Import Regulations, 1986 - The grievance of the appellant is that the requirement of submitting reconciliation statement within the period prescribed under Regulation 7 is mandatory and in the present case, the respondent has furnished the statement beyond the period of three months and, therefore, the Tribunal could not have condoned the delay in filing the statement - Since the Rule itself confers discretion to grant extension of time for furnishing the statement, in the facts of the present case, the discretion exercised by the Tribunal cannot be faulted, especially when the statement under Rule 7 was submitted before finalisation of the provisional assessment - Appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 503 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Benefit of Notification No. 19/94-Cus., dated 28-4-1994 and Notification No. 20/99-Cus., dated 28-2-1999 - Classification - It is further pointed out that the IIT Professor’s report on a sample of the subject-goods clearly adverted to this question and it was authentically certified that the sample could be considered to be “Naphtha" - From the comparative account given by the Dy. Chief Chemist, it is clear that ‘naphtha’ is a mixture of hydrocarbons distilling in the range of 175°C to 240°C, whereas ‘nonene’ is a separate chemically defined liquid hydrocarbon boiling at 149.9°C, soluble in alcohol, insoluble in water etc. Both the notifications granted benefit to imported ‘naphtha’. None granted any benefit in respect of ‘nonene’ - All these data would go to support the Revenue’s case that the item imported by the appellant is not ‘naphtha’ and hence the benefit of the two Notifications would not be admissible to them - Appeal is dismissed

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 481 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Valuation - Enhanced the value of the goods imported based upon the Chartered Engineer’s certificate - Chartered Engineer’s have visited two shops and came to the valuation of the goods - Held that:- this kind of valuation of the imported goods is incorrect and improper appreciation of the valuation rules - Chartered Engineer’s certificate seeking valuation of some durable goods seems to be without any legal basis - Since, the issue requires contemporary import price to be considered, set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter back to the Adjudicating Authority to reconsider the issue afresh after following the principles of natural justice - Appeals are allowed by way of remand.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 466 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - 100% EOU - The impugned order also confiscated the capital goods procured by the appellant indigenously as well as through import and offered to redeem the same on payment of a total fine of Rs. 1,50,00,000 - As per Section 129E of the Customs Act, no pre-deposit is required in respect of the goods which are under the control of the Department to hear and dispose appeal impugning such order - prima-facie, the appellant is liable to pay back the exemption availed by it in respect of the raw materials/consumables procured under the EOU scheme and were the subject of the said order - In the instant case, there is no dispute that the assessee undertook processes such as stirring, stabilizing, testing, labeling and packing of Hydrogen Peroxide received before it was exported - Moreover, for the period 1-4–2002 to 31-3-2005, the Development Commissioner had dropped proposal to penalize the EOU for failure to achieve positive NFE and to discharge export obligation - Decided in favour of the assessee

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 438 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
  

  Demand - Import of goods - Inbond manufacture - steel contained in the scrap - e provisions of Section 65(2)(b) of Customs Act, 1962 - in terms of clause (b) of sub-section 2 of Section 65 ibid, when any part of the goods resulting from inbond manufacturing operations is cleared from the warehouse for home consumption, import duty shall be charged on the quantity of the warehoused goods contained in so much of the waste or refuse as has arisen from the operations - find that the impugned order is consistent with the above provisions of the statute - Note that the language employed in the sub-section is clear and unambiguous and do not find any scope for a different interpretation of the same - In the circumstances, reject the appeal filed by M/s. Cochin Shipyard Ltd.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 417 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Custom House Agent's licence - the petitioner has been carrying on the operations as a Custom House Clearing Agent - the interim order passed by this Court, on 13.04.2006 - this Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondent to complete the adjudication proceedings, in respect of the allegations made against the petitioner - Hence, the petitioner shall be permitted to carry on the operations as a Custom House Clearing Agent, till final orders are passed by the respondent, pursuant to the said impugned order.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 404 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Exemption - Notification 30/2004-CE dated 09.07.2004 - In view of the similar orders passed by this Court in a case of (M/s.Shiv Shanti Exim Pvt. Ltd V. The Commissioner of Customs),the exemption cannot be granted - The respondents are directed to release the goods concerned, in respect of the above said Bills of Entry, subject to the condition that the petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee for the entire value of Additional Duty of Customs - Hence, when the bank guarantee is furnished, the respondents shall release the goods, forthwith.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 398 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit on the enhanced value - the issue involved Tearlier order passed by the Division Bench of this Court,(THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS), SEAPORT, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S.POLYCRAFT EXPORTS (P) LTD., AND ANOTHER), had directed the petitioner to deposit 25% of the enhanced value, apart from paying the applicable rate of duty on the enhanced value - Hence, on complying with the said conditions, the respondents are directed to release the goods, with liberty to the respondents to proceed further, in accordance with law.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 396 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Confiscation of goods - Redemption fine and duty - silver ingots - Under Section 110(1A) of the Customs Act, 1962 the notified goods seized by the department can be disposed of by the department immediately after the seizure and the silver bars are the notified commodity u/S 110(1A) of the Act - Having regard to the constraint involved in storage of high valued goods and considering the liquidity to exchequer, the silver ingots were disposed of - The order of this Court for release of the impugned goods on redemption fine was subject to availability of the goods. Since the imported goods are not available with the Department, the question of exercising the option as directed by this Court will not arise - Hence the department is not in a position to release the sale proceeds since the CEGOT had upheld the final order passed by the Department and the Tribunal's order was not set aside - It was pointed out that this Court while passing order relied upon the judgment of Kolkatta Tribunal in the case of Hiralal Bhagat v. Commissioner of Customs - Tribunal held since the seized goods were not available and due to liberalization such goods are not barred from being brought in, permission was granted to the aggrieved party to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine and duty - Therefore, the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be countenanced by this Court - Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed - No costs.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 380 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Exemption - Notification No.30/2004-CE, dated 9.7.2004 - The similar orders passed by this Court in a number of writ petitions, held that the exemption from Additional Duty of Customs (CVD),cannot be granted - The respondents are directed to release the goods concerned, in respect of the above said Bills of Entry, subject to the condition that the petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee - when the bank guarantee is furnished, the respondents shall release the goods, forthwith - The writ petition is ordered accordingly. No costs.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 378 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Confiscated goods - There is no question of any duty on the goods which were sold by the respondent and the levy of Customs duty of Rs.3,94,487/- on the petitioner is unwarranted - It is respectfully submitted that the goods were sold as per the provisions of Section 110(1A) taking into consideration, the depreciating nature of its value, if it is prolonged to be kept in the godown - Thus, the intrinsic value of the cell phones was protected by disposing of the same u/s 110(1A) of the Customs Act, 1962 - If the cell phones were to be disposed now, it could fetch much lower value - The only option to the department is to refund the sale proceeds (i.e cum duty price) after deduction of duty, fine and penalty which is a statutory liabilities under the provision of Customs Act and the procedure laid down in the Act is legally carried over - Hence, the contention of the petitioner is legally untenable - If the petitioner is so aggrieved, he can always filed an appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) u/s 128 against the impugned order. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed - No costs.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 364 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Disallowance - DEPB benefit - Confiscation - Notification No. 34/97-Cus., dated 7-4-1997 - The goods having been eligible and entitled to DEPB benefit, DGFT as final authority granted appropriate credit to the appellant and such credits were found to be genuine in the hands of transferees thereof - There was no evidence on record to show that at any time Revenue has collected any sample of the goods exported by the appellants except the sample sent for opinion of DGFT relied upon by the Appellant - In absence of any evidence from any of the tractor manufacturers or the sample tested in any laboratory recognised by law, opinion of the DGFT authorities is not liable to be vitiated and Revenue did not challenge opinion of DGFT upon receipt of the same - Appeal is allowed

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 363 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Appeal - Whether the impugned order is of an administrative order or a quasi-judicial order - In the earlier round of litigation where the permission of factory stuffing was denied to the appellant on negative report sent by the Jurisdictional Asst. Commissioner without looking into the report of the Asst. Commissioner, the same was challenged before this Tribunal and this Tribunal remanded back the matter to pass a speaking order - the Commissioner has passed the order on an application filed by the applicant for grant of permission. If any order is passed against any representation made by the assessee, the same become quasi judicial order and is appealable order.

  Factory stuffing of export goods - Shri Ramesh Bafna,father of the Director of the appellant firm is having shares in the appellant firm - As per law, Shri Ramesh Bafna and M/s. RIIPL are two different legal entities - For the act of M/s. RIIPL, Shri Ramesh Bafna has already been exonerated - If Shri Ramesh Bafna having any share in the appellant firm that does not make any adverse binding on the appellant firm. M/s. RIIPL, wherein Shri Ramesh Bafna is a Director, which was involved in fraudulent export also have no merits as Shri Ramesh Bafna has been exonerated by this Tribunal and there is no allegation found by the department against Shri Ramesh Bafna - As per Customs law, there is no bar to run two firms from the same address, denial of permission of factory stuffing on that premise is also not sustainable.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 358 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Notification No. 39/96 S. No. 10(i) - it is clear that it was a clerical mistake committed by the CHA in writing the name of the importer as M/s. Shradha Outdoor Equipment Pvt. Ltd. Instead of M/s. Shradha Trading (India) - When there is no dispute about the fact that the purchase order was in the name of M/s. Shradha Trading (India) and all other relevant documents are in the name of the said firm and the fact of payment by Government of India to M/s. Shradha Trading (India) the sole fact of filing of bill of entry in the name of the respondent cannot be pressed into service for holding them the importers - Exemption is granted

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 355 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Re-import of exported goods - Exemption - Held that:- the exports initially made under DEEC have to be held as non DEEC exports, after de-logging, in which case the period of 3 years would be available for re-import of exported goods - The re-importation within 3 years was within the parameters of Notification No. 94/96-Cus., thus making the appellants entitled to the benefit of the same - Decided in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 332 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Refund - Clerical error - The respondents are engaged in the manufacture of modem and multiplexes - They imported various spares and parts and filed a Bill of Entry for the same declaring various prices - Duty was paid on the declared value and the goods were cleared - However, at the time of clearing the last consignment on 4-12-2004, they detected that the value shown in two invoices by the supplier was higher than the contracted purchase price - Supplier who apologized and informed that logistic department have delivered shipment under wrong invoices - Held that: this being a case of wrong mentioning of the price in the invoice, other than the one agreed upon purchase order, is a clear case of clerical error covered by the provision of Section 154 of the Customs Act - Hence, reject the appeal filed by the Revenue.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 330 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Canfisication of goods - hire-purchase agreement - The petitioner is a Finance Company - In view of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Ganga Hire Purchase Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of Punjab (1999 -TMI - 45502 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA), Since the department is yet to pass a final order on the confiscation, they are unable to concede the request of the petitioner - the relief claimed by the petitioner for release of goods denied.

  ---

123456