|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 181 to 188 of 188 Records
-
2018 (2) TMI 35 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Refund of SAD - payment of interest on late refund of SAD in terms of Section 27A of the Customs Act - contention of the respondents is that Section 27A is not applicable to refunds of SAD as Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14th September, 2007, has been issued under sub-section (1) to Section 25 of the Customs Act and not under Section 27A of the Customs Act.
Held that: - N/N. 102/2007-Cus. has been issued in exercise of power conferred by Section 25 of the Customs Act. As noticed above, it exempts goods falling within the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, from the whole of SAD leviable under sub-section (5) of Section 3 of the Customs Act, when imported into India for subsequent sale, subject to the conditions in paragraph 2 of notification being fulfilled. Paragraph 3 of the said notification states that jurisdictional customs officer shall sanction refund on being satisfied that conditions referred to in paragraph 2 are fulfilled. It is not disputed that conditions mentioned in paragraph 2 of the notification in respect of 38 Bills of Entry are fulfilled. The orders passed by the jurisdictional customs officer, appellate authority and the Tribunal have attained finality. As a sequitor, it follows that SAD refundable was a duty paid by the petitioner under the Customs Act in respect of which exemption vide N/N. 107/2007-Cus dated 14th September,2007 has been granted by the Central Government.
Section 27A states that duty directed to be refunded under sub section 2 to Section 27, if not paid within three months from date of receipt of application under sub section 1 to section 27, interest would be paid by the authorities as per the rate specified. In other words, if the refund is paid within three months of date of receipt of application under sub section 1 to Section 27, no interest is payable. Interest is payable on delayed refunds after three months post the application for refund till the date of refund. Section 27A therefore ensures prompt decision and payment of refunds, when due and payable under sub section 2 of Section 27 of the Act.
Interest would be payable in terms of Section 27A of the Customs Act on refund of SAD payable in terms of N/N. 102/2007.
Petition allowed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 34 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Benefit of N/N. 11/97 - Customs authorities were of the view that 2900 MTs declared as heavy melting scrap (HMS) were re-usable for other purposes without reclaiming the metal and therefore, the benefit of Customs N/N. 11/97 applicable to HMS, was not available to the case - Held that: - Though Mr.Pramod Kumar Chopda, learned counsel for the appellant, made submissions, in support of the substantial questions of law, finding of fact, confirmed by a coordinate bench in the case of the respondent, on the same set of facts, is binding on us. Though, being aggrieved over some portion of the common order, the Commissioner of Customs/appellant herein, has filed the instant appeals, final order made in 1140 and 1141 of 2006 dated 30.11.2006, has been confirmed in entirety - appeal dismissed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 33 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Suspension of CHA License - Jurisdiction to pass order of suspension - the Commissioner of Customs and Central Excise, Coimbatore, suspended the operation of their CHA Licence No.08/2004, within Coimbatore Customs Formations, for a period of 6 months, with effect from 13.10.2006, vide order, dated 07.11.2006 - principles of Natural Justice - Held that: - CESTAT, Chennai, has stated that there is no intimation in Form-C, from the Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore, to Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, based on the regular licence. Therefore, CHA has been transacting business, based on the regular Licence No.11/1134, dated 03.12.1999, issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. Thus, by observing that in the absence of Form-C intimation from the Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore to Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai, rights and obligations of CHA, under the abovesaid licence, renewed upto 26.07.2014, would not operate within the jurisdiction of Mumbai and similarly, in the absence of Form-C intimation of Mumbai-licence to the Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore, the rights and obligations of the respondent, under that licence would not have any operation, within the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore, CESTAT, Chennai has set aside the suspension order, issued by the Commissioner of Customs, Coimbatore.
There is no ground to reverse the findings of the CESTAT, Chennai - petition dismissed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 32 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Confiscation of goods - Gold is being melted in one Furnace - smuggling - Held that: - In the present case, there is no material available that the goods are imported - the goods were seized at a melting shop at Kolkata, it is a registered melting shop and there is no material available that the goods are of foreign origin and therefore the confiscation of the goods is not justified - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2018 (2) TMI 31 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Valuation - mis-declaration of value - enhancement of invoice price - penalty - Held that: - Indenting agents have no knowledge of the trade transaction; their role is merely to bring buyer and seller together in the highseas sale for a commission. In the instant case, evidence was collected by the department that some amount over and above the invoice value was paid. Payment was made through account payee cheque. The statement given by Shri Niraj Sharma is also doubtful. The show-cause notice is based merely on suspicion without having actual fact. It may be mentioned that scrap is always cheaper than the prime metal. Sale price on highseas could also be cheaper than the sale by the exporter.
The charge of under-invoicing has to be supported by the evidence of prices of contemporaneous imports of similar/identical goods - determination of such price has to be in accordance with the relevant rules and subject to the provision of Section 14(1). It is made clear that these provisions are not mutually exclusive. Therefore Rule 4 must be the price paid or payable on such goods at the time and place of importation in the course of international trade. Section 14 (1) speaks of deemed value.
Appeal allowed.
-
2018 (2) TMI 30 - CESTAT CHENNAI
100% EOU - Penalty u/s 112 (a) - The case against the EOU is that they have not undertaken any manufacture as mandated in the permission nor they have followed the procedure for getting the goods manufactured from the job workers - Held that: - The role of the appellant for the violation of various provisions of Customs Act, 1962 connected to duty-free import of items for the EOU cannot be contested with any force. The original authority examined the depositions made by the appellant during investigation as corroborated by various other evidences before arriving at his conclusion.
In the present appeal there is no substantial ground to reverse the finding of the original authority. The appellant cannot shift the blame to the carelessness of the employees for the violation of Customs Act - the liability for penalty u/s 112(a) cannot be contested - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2018 (2) TMI 29 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Delay in filing appeal - time limitation - defect in service of notice - Held that: - Though it is argued by the ld. AR that the copy of the order was dispatched by speed post on 19.01.2015, undisputedly the said order dispatched was not served upon the appellant. The same has been returned as undelivered as seen from the documents produced by the appellant - the appeal is filed within time - the impugned order requires to be set aside and the matter has been remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) who is directed to consider the appeal on merits - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2018 (2) TMI 28 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Valuation - freight - includibility - Held that: - There is broad agreement on the aspect of quantum of freight cost that will require to be added. It is a fact that as per the Customs Valuation Rules as in force during the material period, even when the cost of transportation of imported goods was ascertainable, for the purpose of adding freight element to form part of the assessable value only 20% of the FOB value would be adopted in respect of goods imported by air - for the limited purpose of re-determining the revised differential duty liability after limiting the freight cost to 20% of the FOB value, the matter is being remanded to the original authority.
Redemption fine - Held that: - there has been misdeclaration on the part of the importer. It is also noted that in the very same month for similar items, the same omission had occurred. Viewed in this light, we cannot but take the protestations of the appellant into a pinch of salt - taking into account that differential duty liability would be calculated only on 20% of the FOB value, and also taking note of the fact that no research was done on the market value of the goods is evident from the record, it is held that a lower redemption fine of ₹ 1,00,000/- would serve the ends of justice in this case - So also reduction of penalty to ₹ 50,000/- ordered.
Appeal allowed in part.
....
|
