|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 663 Records
-
2012 (12) TMI 1228
... ...
... ... ..... , within two weeks from today. He further states that the respondents will not invoke the remaining bank guarantee and will return the same duly discharged, to the petitioners, upon the expiry or the validity thereof, without insisting for renewal thereof . 2. The above statements are accepted and it is so ordered. 3. The notice of motion is accordingly disposed of.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1122
... ...
... ... ..... Rs. 5 lakhs and considering the value of the goods imported, of Rs. 4.19 crores, the fine cannot be said to be excessive at all. As regards the penalty imposed under Section 112(a) of Rs. 1 lakh, the penalty is very nominal and liability to penalty is attracted once the goods are held liable to confiscation, whether there is any mens rea on the part of the appellant or not. The Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Bansal Industries 2007 (207) E.L.T. 346 (Mad.) held that the element of mens rea is not required for imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act. This decision was based on the Hon’ble Apex Court’s decision in the case of Chairman, SEBI v. Shriram Mutual Fund 2006 (5) SCC 361 . 6. In view of the foregoing, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the ld. Commissioner. Accordingly, we uphold the said order and dismiss the appeal as devoid of merits. (Pronounced in Court on 20-12-2012)
-
2012 (12) TMI 1116
... ...
... ... ..... horities, who are the creatures of the Customs Act, cannot be directed to ignore or act contrary to Section 27 of Customs Act. The provision of section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 and Rule 15 of said Drawback Rules are para material w.r.t. time limitation. As such the ratio of said Apex Court judgements are squarely applicable to this case. 10. Finally in reference to consideration of without prejudice submission of the respondent herein for the grant of extension under Rule 17 of the DBK Rules 1995, this authority is constrained to accede -a's. respondent has not produced any such extension granted by competent authority of Central Government. In the absence of any such extension/condonation of delay on record, Government holds this case matter as hit by time limitation. 11. Government therefore set aside the impugned Order-in-Appeal for not being legal and restores the impugned Order-in-Original. 12. The Revision Application thus succeeds in terms of above 13. So, ordered.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1110
The case of petitioner is that since, there is no order for clearance qua this consignment, the Commissioner should have deliberated with respect to the said consignment as well - Held that: - the Commissioner of Customs is directed to deliberate with respect to whether or not clearance ought to be made qua the consignment covered under bill of entry no.3431758 dated 06.05.2011 and thereafter pass an appropriate order, as deemed fit, in accordance with the law - petition disposed off.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1093
... ...
... ... ..... e penalty imposed on him is to the extent of ₹ 50 lakhs. The learned consultant has submitted that, inter alia, his client received an amount of ₹ 3,000/- per transaction totaling to ₹ 6 lakhs. This itself would prima facie indicate a deliberate involvement of Shri Vijay Anand in the fraudulent transactions. In the facts and circumstances of this case, we are inclined to direct Shri Vijay Anand to predeposit an amount of ₹ 20 lakhs towards the penalty imposed on him. In respect of the joint and several liability fastened on him, there shall be waiver and stay. In the result, Shri Vijay Anand shall deposit ₹ 20,00,000/- (Rupees twenty lakhs only) within four weeks and report compliance to DR/AR on 16.1.2013. DR/AR to report to the Bench on 30.1.2013. In the event of due compliance, there will be waiver and stay in respect of the balance amount of penalty as well as the balance amount of the drawback amount. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2012 (12) TMI 1083
... ...
... ... ..... goods illegally on the basis of forged documents from ICD, Tughlakabad, and then selling them in the open market. This need to be probed into by the investigating agency and for this purpose, a free hand deserves to be given to them. I, therefore, feel that merely because certain observations have been passed by this Court in Monika Singh’s case (supra), they do not ipso facto apply to the present case. 12. Keeping in view the enormity and the gravity of the offence in the instant case, I feel it is not a fit case where this Court should exercise discretion in favour of the petitioner and grant him anticipatory bail. Accordingly, the application for grant of anticipatory bail is rejected. 13. I also feel that since there is no specific prayer in the petition that the petitioner should be interrogated in the presence of a counsel, it will be totally inappropriate to pass any such order in an anticipatory bail application. The said oral prayer is also rejected.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1005
The checked-in-baggage had already been handed over to the officials of the Airliner and even according to the prosecution, the checked- in- baggage was offloaded from the Aircraft and brought to place where the mahazer was being drawn.
whether the checked-in-baggage offloaded was locked and whether it was opened by the petitioner
-
2012 (12) TMI 1002
Provisional release of goods - Held that: - In case, the appeal is filed within a period of ten days along with an application for interim stay, the application for interim stay will be considered and decided within a period of five days from the date of filing of the application and appeal will be disposed off finally in accordance with law, as early as possible, but not later than a period of two months from the date of filing of the appeal - Application disposed of.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1001
Provisional release of goods - Held that: - In case, the appeal is filed within a period of ten days along with an application for interim stay, the application for interim stay will be considered and decided within a period of five days from the date of filing of the application and appeal will be disposed off finally in accordance with law, as early as possible, but not later than a period of two months from the date of filing of the appeal - Application disposed of.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1000
Valuation - Value of Software include ability in the value of software - The allegation of the Revenue is that the value of the impugned goods have been split up into hardware and software portion with an intention to evade payment of Customs duty - Imposition of redemption fine and penalty.
-
2012 (12) TMI 998
Provisional release of goods - Held that: - In case, the appeal is filed within a period of ten days along with an application for interim stay, the application for interim stay will be considered and decided within a period of five days from the date of filing of the application and appeal will be disposed off finally in accordance with law, as early as possible, but not later than a period of two months from the date of filing of the appeal - Application disposed of.
-
2012 (12) TMI 988
... ...
... ... ..... me are set aside. 8. With regard to the penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, wherein penalty on the person can be imposed for the violation i.e. If a person knowingly or intentionally makes, sings or uses, or causes to be made, signed or used, any declaration, statement or document which is false or incorrect in any material particular, in the transaction of any business for the purposes of this Act. By using the IEC of some other person is not an offence under the Customs Act is held by the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Hamid Fahim Ansari (supra). Therefore, as the appellant has not violated any provisions of the Customs Act, therefore penalties on the appellants under Section 114AA of the Customs Act is not imposable. Hence the penalties under Section 114AA of the Customs Act are also set aside. 9. In the result, impugned order qua appellants is set aside and appeals are allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Dictated in Court)
-
2012 (12) TMI 985
Delay in filling Appeal Order not communicated in person Petitioner contended that he had not received order-in-original for long time and therefore had not filed appeal earlier Tribunal by impugned order rejected appeal holding that signature contained in acknowledgment slip matched with admitted signature of petitioner Held that:- true that Department relies on acknowledgment however, it was not clear why order was communicated in person as opposed to normal practice of serving orders through RPAD Tribunal was not quite justified in recording that signature in acknowledgment slip was same as those of admitted signatures of partner In larger interest of justice, proceedings remanded to Commissioner (Appeals), who shall hear appeal on merits Impugned orders of Tribunal quashed Decided in favour of Assesse.
-
2012 (12) TMI 982
Search and seizure of contrabands without warrant Trial Court convicted accused of offence punishable under Section 15 of NDPS Act, 1985 and awarded 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine Impugned order of conviction was challenged for non-compliance of section 42 Held that:- PW1 deposed that upon receiving secret information, information was neither reduced to writing nor communicated to senior officer as required under Section 42 No effort was made by PW1 to reduce information into writing and inform his higher authorities instantaneously or even after reasonable delay On contrary PW 1 had more than sufficient time to comply with provisions No documentary evidence available to show what Investigating Officer was doing for two hours and what prevented him from complying with provisions of Act Impugned judgment of conviction set aside Appeal allowed Decided in favour of Appellant.
-
2012 (12) TMI 969
Confiscation of goods - Commercial quantity goods - baggage declaration not present - Held that:- Applicant passenger, on arrival at the airport had reported at the red channel. There is no charge of misdeclaration or concealment of said goods. The goods are confiscated as the same were in commercial quantity and did not constitute bona fide baggage - Applicant has also requested to allow duty free baggage allowance as per rules. In this regards, it is noted that the woollen textiles valuing ₹ 30,000/- cannot be treated in commercial quantity and its value is also well within admissible duty free baggage allowance. Therefore, said textiles valuing ₹ 30,000/- may be allowed clearance under duty free baggage allowance available under the Baggage Rules. The other items are in commercial quantity and do not constitute bona fide baggage under Section 79 of Customs Act, 1962 and said goods are imported in violation of Sections 79 & 11 of Customs Act, 1962 r/w para 2.20 of FTP 2009-14. Therefore the order for confiscation of said goods and imposition of penalty cannot be assailed. - applicant has not sought re-export of goods on his arrival, under Section 80 of Customs Act, 1962. He has deliberately attempted to import the said goods illegally and therefore his request for re-export cannot be accepted at this stage - allows clearance of woollen textiles valuing ₹ 30,000/- is allowed under duty free baggage allowance - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (12) TMI 890
Waiver of pre-deposit of Custom duty - Notification NO.29/2010 - Notification No. 6/2006 - Assessee made imports of microprocessors meant for fitment inside CPU housing/Laptop body - Exempted from payment of additional duty of customs leviable u/s 3(1)
Notification No.29/2010 provides nil rate of duty in respect of the goods classifiable under any chapter in respect of all pre-packaged goods intended for retail sale
Held that:- Goods in question are in pre-packaged and as per the Notification No. 44(RE-2000)/1997-2002 dated 24.11.2000 issued by the DGFT provides that all pre-package commodities are to be affixed MRP. In view of the above notification as the goods in question are pre-packaged therefore are to be affixed retail sale price. Therefore, prima facie in view of the notification cannot be denied on the grounds that are not after retail sale price. Stay granted
-
2012 (12) TMI 889
Concealment of medicinal powder in the Shampoo and Talcum Powder bottles - confiscation order & penalty - Held that:- Another Single Judge of this Court in a petition filed by the mother of petitioner Mrs. Chinta Devi in Chinta Devi Vs. Rajesh Arora Air Custom Officer [2011 (7) TMI 986 - DELHI HIGH COURT] had quashed the proceedings in the aforesaid criminal complaint on the ground that her exoneration by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, had attained finality.
Joint Secretary to the Government of India has accepted the contention of the petitioner that she had no knowledge about the substances in the aforesaid shampoo and talcum powder bottles, therefore, in this case there cannot be any mens rea since the petitioner had no knowledge about the substance found in the aforesaid bottles. The Joint Secretary has maintained the order of confiscation and the same has not been challenged by the petitioner since the said two bottles were of the substances which are not permissible to be given to the petitioner. Under the Customs Act, 1962 there is complete restriction on the aforesaid substance, which the petitioner has brought from Hong-kong, without her knowledge, therefore, her state of mind cannot be said to be having an intention to import or smuggle the aforesaid substance - Thus in the present case the criminal proceedings pending before the trial court cannot go on, against the petitioner, since the petitioner has been fully exonerated by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, and same has attained the finality.
-
2012 (12) TMI 861
Preventive detention Smuggling of goods - Section 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act) - Smuggling of red sanders to Dubai - The red sanders recovered from the three containers - Seized under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962
The detenu was served with the grounds of detention, which advert to the continual criminal activities of the detenu necessitating issuance of detention order, with a view to prevent him from indulging into smuggling activities in future
Petitioner says and submits that the detaining authority has not formulated the grounds of detention at all - Detaining authority has merely replaced the names of detenu and co-detenues with words like "you" and "your" in the grounds of detention served on the detenu and co-detenues, implying that the grounds of detention have been formulated by the sponsoring authority and not by the detaining authority - The petitioner says and submits that the detention law, in the instant case, has been invoked against the detenu as he refused to bribe the concerned senior officers of the sponsoring authority
Held that:- Following the decision in case of Rajesh Vashdev Adnani vs. State of Maharashtra (2005 (10) TMI 493 - SUPREME COURT) that similar cosmetic changes were noticed in the grounds of detention purportedly formulated by the Detaining Authority. The Detaining Authority has not made any amends to ensure that the grounds of detention, and more particularly, the basis on which the subjective satisfaction has been reached must be formulated by the Detaining Authority on his own and not by bodily lifting the contents of the proposal sent by the Sponsoring Authority by making cosmetic changes thereto. Such approach of the Detaining Authority has been repeatedly frowned upon by the Courts considering the fact that the exercise of power to detain a person without a trial on the basis of circumstances of suspicion is a very drastic order to be passed, which cannot be and ought not to be resorted to lightly. Direct the State Authorities to forthwith release the detenu. In favour of assessee
-
2012 (12) TMI 860
Provisional release of the vessel - Furnish security in the form of a bank guarantee - Section 129A (1)(a) of the Customs Act - Held that:- With regard to the facts of the case and the urgency pleaded by the assessee. Direct the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal within three weeks from the date of its filing and removal of defects.
-
2012 (12) TMI 836
Outstanding refund claim - assessee seeking refund the amounts due to them with interest - Held that:- As decided in SHREE SIMANDAR ENTERPRISES case [2012 (9) TMI 538 - KERALA HIGH COURT] which arose from 2012 (8) TMI 176 - KERALA HIGH COURT the event of the petitioners producing documents pertaining to the identity of the person to whom refund is to be made along with proof of address and also bank account number and executing an indemnity bond undertaking to keep the department indemnified against future claims by someone else who might produce the original of the duty paid challan, the respondent will refund the amount payable to the petitioners. Also to pay interest at 6% per annum was also vacated - directions for refund of excess fine and penalty without interest.
........
|
