|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 2047 Records
-
2017 (12) TMI 1593 - KERALA HIGH COURT
During the pendency of the writ petition, final orders are passed - time sought to prefer appeal against the final orders passed - Held that:- If the petitioner makes any appeal and stay application, within two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment, the stay application shall be considered by the appellate authority, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks thereafter - petition disposed off.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1571 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Imposition of Safeguard Duty - N/N. 71/2009 dated 19.6.2009 - justification for imposition of Safeguard Duty when the manufactures certificate reflected 6 microns as the thickness at the time of export recognizing the concept of transaction value as per provision of section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with WTO Valuation Agreement (Earlier GATT Valuation Code) - Cross-examination of witnesses sought at appellate stage - whether the cross-examination as sought could be allowed? - Held that:- Before proceeding with the matter, it will not be out of place to mention that on the cross examination, it is right of the assessee and such request should be made at the very first opportunity when it is available i.e. before adjudicating authority and not after adjudicating authority accepts the report and decides the matter against the assessee - The cross examination or request for referring the matter to the expert laboratory should be made at the very first time and if such request is made then only the laboratory should decide thickness, quality after physical verification of the product. However, such request cannot be made the appellate stage.
In the present case, if the appellant would have made such request at the first stage then it could have been open for the authority to send the product for further examination at the cost of the appellant. However, in the present case, no such request was made and therefore, the authorities upto the tribunal have correctly accepted the report of Shriram Institute.
Reference to Tolerance Limit - Whether non grant of tolerance limit factor in the micron calculation as fixed by BIS (Bureau of Indian Standards) makes the report unreliable specially when there are contradictory results of highest order in the different reports? - Held that:- Benefit of tolerance limit cannot be granted to the appellant and the liability of duty is ascertained as per actual thickness of the product.
Personal penalty U/S 114A of CA - Held that:- The appellant has bonafidely imported products pursuant to the invoices which were received from the manufacturer. In that view of the matter, for penalty we are of the opinion that present case being the first instance for mis-declaration on part of the appellant, we absolve appellant from penalty and personal penalty - penalty waived.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1570 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Grant of Bail - Smuggling - “Zol Fresh” tablet containing “Zoipidem” as a psychotropic substances - case of Revenue is that the psychotropic drug recovered from the accused is well above the commercial quantity prescribed in the schedule and the restrictions contained in Section 37 of the NDPS Act and thus bail cannot be granted - bail was now claimed on the ground that the petitioner is in critical sickness condition - Revenue believed that all those medical facilities available in the Central Prison itself and therefore, the petitioner can very well avail all such medical facilities and get proper treatment
Held that:- Since this Court has already decided the issue involved in this petition, the question of considering the very same issue once again does not arise - On perusal of the Medical Certificate, dated 12.02.2017 given by Dr.L.Vijayalakshmi, Assistant Civil Surgeon, Government General Hospital, Chennai, it is seen that the petitioner was undergoing treatment from 20.09.2017 to till date and his health condition is very bad and was advised to take complete rest. Further, the petitioner was also enlarged on interim bail on medical grounds and got proper treatment in the Private Hospital and therefore, there is no problem in his health condition, if at all, he needs treatment, he can avail medical facilities from the Government Hospital.
Bail cannot be granted - petition is dismissed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1569 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Cus. as amended - denial on the ground that there was no endorsement on the sale invoices to the extent that no credit has been availed in respect of the imported goods in terms of para 2(b) of the said notification and also on the ground that the Chartered Accountant certificate produced by them is not in proper format - Held that:- The issue whether non-endorsement to the effect that no credit was availed in respect of imported goods on the sales invoices is sufficient ground for rejection of refund has been settled by the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision in the case of Chowgule & Company Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (8) TMI 214 - CESTAT MUMBAI (LB)], where it was held that Condition relating to endorsement on the invoice was merely a procedural one and the purpose and object of such an endorsement could be achieved when the duty element itself was not specified in the invoice - rejection of refund not sustainable.
C.A. certificate not in the proper format - Held that:- The appellant should be given another opportunity to produce the C.A certificate with the necessary details, to be verified by the adjudicating authority. Only for this limited purpose, the matter is remanded to the adjudicating authority.
Appeal is partly allowed and partly remanded to the adjudicating authority.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1559 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Maintainability of appeal - Neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee-Appellants nor any adjournment application is filed - Held that: - It may be mentioned that as per the maxim VIAILATIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT, law helps those who are vigilant and not those who go to sleep - the appeal is dismissed for default.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1557 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Provisional release of seized goods - Section 110A of the Customs Act read with Customs (Provisionally Duty Assessment Regulations) 1963 - Held that: - the respondent Department has not placed on record as to what is the allegation against the petitioner. From the copies of the bills of entry filed, it is found that the petitioner has imported metal balls, cotton buds, etc. and it is not known as to what is the exact reasons for the cargo being detained since first week of October 2017.
There will be a direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's application for provisional release and pass appropriate orders - petition disposed off.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1542 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Principles of natural justice - In spite of notice, neither anybody appeared for the Appellants nor there is any adjournment application on record - Held that: - It may be mentioned that Anti-Dumping Bench is a not a regular Bench, but it is a especially constituted Bench to decide the case. From the record, it appears that the notice was served in the month of November. Hence, it appears that the assessee-Appellants are not interested to pursue the matter.
As per the maxim VIAILATIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT, law helps those who are vigilant and not those who go to sleep.
Appeal dismissed for default.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1517 - SC ORDER
Classification of goods - Exemption Notification No. 23/98-Cus. - Piston Ring Set imported by the respondents herein for use as components/parts of engines of Shakti Power Tillers - the decision in the case of COMMR. OF CUS. (I), MUMBAI Versus LA-CAST METALS & COMPONENTS PVT. LTD. [2005 (12) TMI 509 - CESTAT, MUMBAI] contested, where it was held that Tillers rightly classified under Chapter heading 84.32 - Held that: - The judgment impugned does not warrant any interference - appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1516 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Confiscation - personal penalties - old and used Digital Multifunction Printers/Devices imported by the petitioner - delay in adjudication proceedings - alternative remedy - Held that: - the petitioner cannot be heard to contend that the department had confirmed the demand against it, or found against it on grounds which were not specifically put to them, through a show cause notice - the mere fact that a show cause notice was subsequently issued to the petitioner did not, as indeed it could not, work to the prejudice of the petitioner, because the show cause notice only limited the grounds on which the adjudicating authority could confirm the proposals against the petitioner - the challenge in the writ petition against Ext.P6 order cannot be legally sustained, and the petitioner ought to be relegated to his alternate remedy of approaching the Appellate Tribunal against the said order.
Taking note of the urgency that is projected by the learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner, I direct that, if the petitioner in the writ petition, as also the partners of the petitioner partnership, against whom personal penalties are imposed by Ext.P6 order, prefer appeals against Ext.P6 order, before the Central Excise and Customs Appellate Tribunal, Bangalore, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this Judgment, after complying with all the procedural formalities, the Tribunal shall endeavour to consider and dispose the appeals on merits, within an outer time limit of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment - petition disposed off.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1515 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Valuation - discount - includibility - related party transaction - goods imported from their principals for purposes of stock and sale - Held that: - the quantum of imports made by the respondent justify the same to be categorized as a separate class of buyers - the order passed by the learned Commissioner(Appeals) is reasonable. He has given detailed reasons justifying the grant of discounts - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1514 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - it was alleged that the appellant helped importer in misdeclaration of value as well as quantity of imported assorted consumer goods - Held that: - there is no clear cut evidence of abetment or instigation on the part of the appellant to undervalue the goods declared by the importers. In fact the appellant has only acted as a Clearing and Forwarding Agent and there is no independent corroborative evidence to come to the conclusion that he has helped the importer in evading the payment of customs duty - the appellant's case is squarely covered by the provisions of Section 28(6) of the Customs Act which clearly lays down that once the duty with interest and penalty has been paid in full, then the proceedings in respect of the importer as well as other persons should be deemed conclusive.
The appellant is covered by Section 28(6) and therefore the proceedings against him also stands concluded once the importer has accepted the undervaluation and paid the differential duty along with interest and penalty - penalty u/s 112(a) of the CA, 1962 set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1461 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - prohibition of petitioner from working in all sections of the Mumbai Customs Zones I, II & III pending post-decisional hearing by the competent authority - Held that: - the petitioner has ample opportunities available in law to resist the action - also, the alternate and equally efficacious remedy of approaching the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal can be also availed of. In the circumstances, the Writ Petition should not be entertained - petition dismissed being not maintainable.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1460 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction - provisional release of the seized vessel - Whether the Tribunal has jurisdiction to entertain an Appeal against a letter allowing provisional release of Vessel “Sagar Fortune” under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962?
Held that: - To our mind the communication / letter dated 25th September 2017 is a decision taken by the adjudicating authority and is appealable to the Tribunal under Section 129(1)(a) of the Act - in the cases of Shiv Mahal Textiles [2012 (12) TMI 998 - HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN] the Revenue has successfully urged before the Court that an appeal from an order passed under Section 110 A of the Act is available.
Appeal dismissed - decided in favor of respondent-assessee.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1459 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Permission to re-export the cargo - jurisdiction of CESTAT to pass interim orders for permitting re-export of the cargo imported by the petitioner - the cargo imported by the petitioner has been defined as spurious, which is not on account of the fact that it is unfit for human consumption and is on account of the fact that there is a mis-match in the batch number of the products, which consists of four alphabets and six numericals - Held that: - the first option to be given to the petitioner/importer is for re-export of the product and it is only thereafter the respondent could exercise the power to order for confiscation of the consignment. This option has not been given to the petitioner. This Court is of the view that such option should be extended to the petitioner, as otherwise, it may lead to civil consequences. Therefore, to that extent, this Court is inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
The finding rendered by the respondents rejecting the petitioner's request for re-export of the cargo is set aside and the respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to re-export the cargo within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition allowed in part.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1458 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
100% EOU - Benefit of N/N. 13/1981 dated 9th February, 1981 - Misdeclaration of imported goods - Old and Used Diesel Car Engines - Old and Used Car Bonnets - redemption fine - penalty.
Held that: - the reasoning of the Tribunal cannot be faulted inasmuch as there was no factual verification of the market value. No attempt was made by the revenue to ascertain the local market value of the used engines and in absence of such attempt to obtain market value, the estimation of the local market value is suspect.
There is no substance in Mr. Jetly's contention that additional evidence ought not to have been allowed. Once the department failed to object to admission of document and its contents, it was not open for the revenue to question the impugned order on the basis that the additional evidence ought not to have been allowed. Even otherwise, it is seen that the documents sought to be introduced were not new documents which were not available with the authorities below but were only produced before the Tribunal at the time of disposal of the appeals since they were already part of the documents filed before the authorities below.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1457 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Benefit of Advance license - discharge of export obligation - non-production of documents to establish the discharge of export obligation - Held that: - the very basis for the differential demand confirmed against the petitioner in Exts. P2 and P5 orders has been removed - in view of the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate issued to the petitioner by the 3rd respondent, the petitioner shall be deemed to have discharged his export obligation in terms of the advance licence granted to him - petition allowed.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1456 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Applications u/s 127B(1) of the CA, 1962 - applications were rejected by the CCESC on the ground that there does not appear to be any meeting ground between the assertions of the applicant and the Revenue and in such a situation the case is not amenable for settlement.
Held that: - the essential requirement for the CCESC to consider the application in terms of Section 127B of the Act is that the applicants should make a full and true disclosure of all material facts relevant to their duty liability, which had not been earlier been disclosed, and also make disclosure of the manner in which the said liability was incurred - the Court is of the view that in the present case the CCESC ought not to have declined to examine the petitioners applications only because there was no meeting ground between the petitioners and the revenue.
The applications filed by the petitioners before it are restored to its file to be taken up for fresh hearing and decision on merits.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1455 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Penalty u/s 112 of CA - smuggling - It appeared that the Pashmina shawls in question was imported into India contrary to prohibitions imposed under the Customs Act and were liable to confiscation - Held that: - the allegations in the show cause notice are only presumptive. There is no evidence on record by which this appellant can be linked with the seized Pashmina shawls at Barhni LCS - almost all the goods were found to be legally imported. The seizure of a small part of the goods originally seized on the belief of being smuggled is bad and not tenable in view of adequate evidence led by the appellant - confiscation with penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1454 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
DEPB benefit - whether the Customs Authority has the power to cancel the registration of DEPB, as it appeared to them that the goods exported by the appellants were not covered under Standard Input Output Norms (SION) and as per Foreign Trade Policy and thus DEPB credit for the exported goods appeared to be not admissible to them? - Held that: - The power to determine and modify DEPB credit vests only with DGFT Authorities. Customs Authorities duty is to verify the exporter's declaration, quantity and value of export products. Only DGFT decides to grant credit, the Customs Authorities cannot modify the credit. As per the Government policy, the jurisdiction to initiate recovery of excess credit or wrong credit lies with the DGFT. It is for the Customs to get in touch with the DGFT Authorities to initiate action for recovery of the excess credit availed by the appellants - cancellation of registration of the DEPB Credit by the Customs authorities set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (12) TMI 1453 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
100% EOU - non-fulfillment of export obligation - appellant were unable to procure the requisite foreign exchange in the initial period of LOP, fixed by the Development Commissioner - Held that: - the Central Board of Excise and Customs vide its Circular No. 21/95-Cus., dated 10-3-1995 has clarified that the liability of customs duty on goods imported by 100% EOU arises either at the stage of the unit being debonded or if any of the conditions of customs notification stand violated or remain unfulfilled - Admittedly in the present case, the Development Commissioner has extended the EOU status of the appellant till 2019 and hence it is not only premature on the part of the adjudicating authority to confirm the demand but is also without any basis - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
........
|
