|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Appellate Tribunal - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 32 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote and Decision etc.
-
2023 (2) TMI 1100
Exemption from countervailing duty [CVD] under the Notification No. 12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 and special additional duty of customs [SAD] under the Notification No. 21/2012-CUS dated 17.03.2012 - gold/platinum/silver findings, which are parts of jewellery - ‘parts of Articles of jewellery’ are covered in the phrase ‘Articles of jewellery’, when not separately specified, or not - ‘parts of Articles of silver jewellery’ are covered in the phrase ‘Articles of silver jewellery’, when not separately specified, or not. HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the goods involved in these appeals, namely gold/platinum/silver findings that have been imported by the appellant are ‘parts of jewellery’. Chapter 71 contained in section XIV to the Customs Tariff Act deals with natural or cultu....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 1049
Interest on the refund of differential duty deposited for the purpose of clearance, being successful in appeal - price escalation clause - consent given by the appellant to the enhancement made by the department in the value of the declared goods at the time of processing of the Bill of Entry or not - Revenue urges that deposit of differential duty without making a prior protest, amounts to acceptance or consent on the part of the appellant. HELD THAT:- It is an accepted fact that appellant had deposited the differential duty as ordered by revenue, but have immediately filed the appeal and thus, the payment of differential duty was under protest, ipso facto. It is further found that such claim of the appellant of payment under protest was accepted by the Commissioner (Appeals) who remanded the matter for re-adjudication under Section 17(5....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 1039
Clandestine removal of the goods from trading unit at KASEZ - Revenue proceeded on the premise that Appellant was engaged in diversion of goods in DTA clandestinely and fabricated the records to show that said goods were exported - diversion of goods to DTA - existence of concrete evidences or not - HELD THAT:- The allegation of clandestine removal of the goods from trading unit at KASEZ, which was under the physical control of the department, to the Domestic market no cogent evidence was produced by the revenue. Not a single customer is brought on records who has received the clandestine removed goods. No documentary evidence is produced in the form of transport receipts, delivery challans or any other documents relating to removal of disputed goods. No evidences produced regarding the receipts of payment against the clearances of disput....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 1038
Valuation of import goods - Alloy Wheels of motorcycles - rejection of declared value - redetermination of assessable value - market survey was actually conducted in the presence of the proprietor and as per the opinion given by the shopkeepers, the retail sale price was ascertained - HELD THAT:- It is no doubt true that the value of the imported goods shall be the transaction value of such goods when the buyer and the seller of goods are not related and the price is the sole consideration, but this is subject to such conditions as may be specified in the rules to be made in this behalf. The Valuation Rules have been framed. A perusal of rule 12(1) indicates that when the proper officer has reason to doubt the truth or accuracy of the value of the imported goods, he may ask the importer to furnish further information. Rule 12(2) stipulate....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 1037
Quantum of levy of penalty and redemption fine - low amount of redemption fine and penalty imposed - use of Dummy IEC - Attempt to export helicopters without obtaining an IEC from the DGFT as required under the Foreign Trade Policy - whether the alleged violation, which resulted in confiscation of the goods, is a technical violation or substantial violation calling for enhancement of fine and penalty? - HELD THAT:- On confiscation, the property of the goods will vest in the Central Government and the individual or entity is deprived of its property which is a very serious punishment. The Adjudicating Authority has to, in the first place, decide if the goods attempted to be exported fell under one of the clauses of section 113. If they do not, this section does not apply at all. If the goods fall under one of the clauses under section 113,....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 996
Exemption from customs duty - preferential Trade Agreement with Asian Countries - Whether the defect of non mention of invoice number in the Certificate of Origin can be enough to reject the certificate of origin and debar the appellant from benefit of Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011? - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the consignment was imported by MV Intrepid which sailed on 04.11.2011 from Indonesia carrying 51,397,979 MT of steal coal (non-coking). It is also not in dispute that the consignment imported by the appellant is part of the same cargo. The appellant have sought to rely on the country of origin certificate which contains these details relating to date of sailing and name of ship and the quantity of cargo. The said certificate does not contain the invoice number of either the original purchaser or of the a....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 901
Debonding of 100% EOU - Levy of interest on raw materials, lying in stock beyond the warehousing period - department was of the view that the duty paid on raw materials warehoused beyond the period of three years was liable to interest under Section 61 (2) (i) of Customs Act, 1962 at the rate of 15% per annum as per Notification No. 28/2002- Cus. (NT) dated 13.05.2002 - SCN is time barred or not. HELD THAT:- The SCN has been issued under Section 28 of the Customs Act,1962. It is clear from the above provision that the SCN has to be issued within a period of six months. The impugned raw materials were imported between 1995 and 2003. The SCN is dated 13.10.2008. The duty having been paid on the date of De-Bonding the relevant date to compute the demand would therefore be the date of debonding ie., 31.03.2007. The Ld. AR has submitted that a....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 834
Refund of Cost recovery charges paid - revenue submits that though the department has challenged the order of this Tribunal but no stay has been granted by the Hon’ble High Court - HELD THAT:- The Learned Commissioner (appeals) has granted the refund in pursuance to this Tribunal’s order in GOODEARTH MARITIME LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, KANDLA [2020 (3) TMI 494 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], whereby on merit the demand of cost recovery charges was set aside. Hence this refund is consequential relief to the afore said Tribunal’s order. Though the revenue has challenged the order of this tribunal before the High Court but, since there is no stay, the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be disturbed. Therefore, in view of this Tribunal’s order, since the demand of cost recovery charges has been set aside, the....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 741
Valuation of imported goods - Non-calcined petroleum coke - rejection of declared value - case of the department is that due to similarity in various factors, the import price of BGH Exim Limited needs to be followed and the price declared by the appellant should be rejected. Whether the value declared by the appellant in respect of import of Non-calcined petroleum coke as Rs. 2871.15 is correct or price of comparable import made by BGH Exim Limited @ Indian Rs. 3701.20 is correct? - whether the enhancement of value should be made taking the price of comparable imports? HELD THAT:- The learned Commissioner (Appeals) has considered the entire issue in detail not only on the facts but also on the law point. There is an important difference between the facts of the present import and the import made by BGH Exim Limited in which there is only....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 740
100% EOU - SION - Benefit of exemption - Extended period of limitation - Waiver of penalty levied u/s 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 - reduction in the quantum of penalties imposed under section 112(a) of the Act - It appeared to the revenue that the appellant used or consumed steel grits/ gangs saw blades at a rate higher than the Standard Input Output Norms [SION] - liability to pay duty on the steel grits and saw blades consumed in excess of the SION - CENVAT Credit on additional duties of customs. Whether the appellant is liable to pay duty on the steel grits and saw blades consumed in excess of the SION? - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly, the exemption Notification 22/2003-CUS, as applicable during the relevant period, was subject to various conditions including the condition that the appellant shall use consumables as per the SION norms. It ....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 739
Refund claim - rejection on the ground of unjust enrichment - Revenue contended that the learned Commissioner (Appeals) merely followed the order of Mundra Custom, however he has not independently examined the aspect of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- The learned Commissioner (Appeals) simply followed the order of Mundra (Custom) and no independent finding was given as regard the unjust enrichment. Despite that the Revenue has raised the ground of unjust enrichment in their appeal. As regard, the issue of unjust enrichment, it is purely based on the fact on the basis and the same can be established on the basis of books of accounts along with CA Certificate. The issue of unjust enrichment depends on fact of each case, however, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) except following the order of Mundra (Customs), neither examined the fact of u....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 738
Levy of penalty u/s 114(iii) and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - freight forwarder - fraudulent availment of Special Focus Market Scheme (SFMS) benefits, by producing forged House BL and landing certificate, wherein consignee country was deliberately mis-declared by them for the purpose of availing undue benefit under SFMS - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner (Appeals) in para 16.2 of the impugned order has observed, in respect of the order of the Settlement Commission. Undisputedly there is no denial vis-à-vis the role of the appellant in the acts undertaken leading to loss of revenue. However, taking note of the fact that the appellant is not the actual beneficiary but is only the freight forwarder arranging for container, taking the consignment to shipping lines etc. as per the directions of Shri Ramesh Singh, it is found tha....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 677
Revocation of Customs Broker License - Non-grant of opportunity of cross examination - retraction of statements - SCN is beyond the period of limitation under CBLR, 2013 or not? - applicability of principle of double jeopardy on issuance of second suspension order - violation of provisions of Regulation 11 (a), (d), (m), (n) (o) and 17 (9) of CBLR, 2013. Whether show cause notice is beyond the period of limitation under CBLR, 2013? - HELD THAT:- In the present case, it is evident that after further investigation in accordance with the provisions of Regulation 20 of CBLR 2013, the Commissioner of Customs, Noida, vide letter dated 25.01.18 sent the Offence Report dated 19.01 .2018 which was received by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi on 09.02.2018. The subject of the said report, specifically stated, “Role of Customs Broker, Sw....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 623
Sanctioned amount of refund has been rightly credited to the Consumer Welfare Fund or not - Amount was deposited under protest - principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- The order of court below is erroneous and in the teeth of the ruling of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of U.O.I. VERSUS SUVIDHE LTD. [1996 (8) TMI 521 - SC ORDER]. Admittedly, the amount under refund claim were deposited partly during investigation and partly during pendency of the 1st appeal. Further, it is evident that the Appellant did not agree with revenue and have contested the SCN as well as the adjudication order. The amount deposited are found to be deposited under protest, ipso facto. Further, these amounts are also in the nature of pre-deposit - the burden of unjust enrichment is not attracted. The Adjudicating Authority is directed to grant the refund with interest @ 12% per annum from the date of deposit till the date of refund - Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 622
Levy of anti-dumping duty on the imported goods - import of Aluminium Alloy coils - N/N. 23/2017-Cus (ADD) dated 16.5.2017 - Applicability of ruling of Bombay High Court in favor of importer - HELD THAT:- The disputed goods were described as Aluminium alloy foils while the goods under consideration by the Bombay High Court in MAHLE ANAND THERMAL SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS THE UNION OF INDIA, THROUGH JOINT SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE, DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE & ORS. [2022 (8) TMI 844 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] were Silico-Manganese-Aluminium alloy foils. The goods imported through Gandhinagar were described as Aluminium alloy foil. Learned authorised representative submitted that the nature of goods has to be seen and the disputed goods are different from the goods under consideration of the Bombay High Court and also the goods importe....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 621
Interest on Refund of excess paid CVD - interest was denied to the respondents/assessees on the ground that the matter was sub-judiced before the CESTAT and the refund claims were disposed of within the period of three months of the said order - Commissioner (Appeals) allowed claim of interest - HELD THAT:- As per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of M/s Ranbaxy Laboratories Ltd [2011 (10) TMI 16 - SUPREME COURT] wherein Hon’ble Apex Court has held that the Revenue is liable to pay interest under Section 11BB of the Act and the period commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of the application for refund under Section 11B(1) of the Act and not on the expiry of said period from the date on which the order of refund is made.s per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex ....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 620
Smuggling - Gold - recovery of contraband - cross-examination of statements - burden to prove - Appellants denied recovery of any gold from their possession and demanded cross-examination of the panch witnesses - failure to comply with the provision of Section 155(2) of Customs Act, 1962 - entire case of Revenue is based upon the allegation of recovery of gold from Shri Amit Ghosh and Shri Ajay Kumar Gond and the statements all dated 07.03.2017 of the first three Appellants - levy of penalty u/s 112 (a) and (b) of Customs Act, 1962. HELD THAT:- The burden is on Revenue to establish the voluntary nature of the statements all dated 07.03.2017 recorded from the first three Appellants in the present case. The Revenue has failed to adduce any evidence to that effect. On the contrary, the facts and circumstance, including the fact of prolonged ....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 619
Rejection of Classification of imported goods - Portable Solar Home Electric Light - HANS 300 and HANS 150 - classification of imported goods under Customs Tariff Heading, CTH No. 85131010 and IGST S. No. 234 of Schedule I of Notification No. 1/2017-IGST (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 was rejected and the imported goods were held to be classifiable under CTH 85076000 and covered under S. No. 139 of IGST Schedule IV of Notification No. 1/2017-IGST (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - case of the Revenue is that the imported goods should be classified as per their main function which is that of an accumulator - recovery alongwith interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- The imported goods in question are designed for the purpose of performing several complementary or alternative functions viz. (a) generation of electricity solar energy; (b) storing the electricity....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 550
Valuation of imported goods - rejection of declared value, and redetermination of the same - declared price of the goods, below the Minimum Import Price - violation of Policy Condition No. 1 of the ITC(HS) Import Policy which prescribed that the specified defective items can be imported free, except those for which the CIF value of imports was below the value specified for the said items - confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the proper officer doubted the value of the goods declared by the appellant since it was below the Minimum Import Price and sent a letter dated 09.09.2020 to the appellant. The appellant, in response to the aforesaid communication, categorically stated that the issuance of show cause notice may be waived and personal hearing may also not be given. The appellant also stated that ....... + More
-
2023 (2) TMI 491
Absolute Confiscation - redemption of goods denied on the ground of it being prohibited goods - Mosquito swatter/bat - imported goods are prohibited in nature since the DGFT notification (effect of the notification was, mosquito killer racket under HS code 85167920 and 85167990 in theimport policy was revised from free to prohibited) was issued on 26.04.2021 and the Bill of Lading date was also 26.04.2021 - HELD THAT:- Both the Adjudicating authority and Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) are of the opinion that, prohibited goods cannot be redeemed which is contrary to the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court relied upon by the consultant in MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT], wherein it was held that Absolute confiscation should be an exception rather than a Rule. Without exploring any other ....... + More
|
