|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Appellate Tribunal - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 92 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 (5) TMI 1201
Classification of export goods - Ilmenite upgraded (processed) - to be classified under Tariff Item 2614 00 20 (as beneficiated/processed Ilmenite) or under Customs Tariff Act 2614 00 10 (as unprocessed Ilmenite)? - HELD THAT:- As per the definition beneficiation is done for three purposes. Any processes done for the above three purposes carried out on the mined sand would be known as beneficiation . From the flow chart which has been noticed above it can be seen that the various processes undertaken on the raw sand by the appellants achieves the purpose of regulating the size, removing unwanted impurities and also improving quality or SI grade of Ilmenite - it is difficult to agree with the view of the Department that to obtain beneficiated Ilmenite processes like roasting and chemical treatment is mandatory. Without furnishing any e....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 1167
Maintainability of revenue s appeal - time limitation - Refund of 4% additional duty of customs paid - review order as required under Sub Section (2) of Section 129D of Customs Act, 1962 has been passed by the Reviewing Authority beyond the period of three months as envisaged under Sub Section (3) of Section 129D of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- Similar appeals had come up for hearing before the Tribunal wherein the Commissioner (Appeals) had dismissed appeals filed by Department on the ground of being time barred. In those cases also it was urged by the Department that the seal impressed on the Order-in-Original by the Reviewing Cell would establish that the order was received by the Reviewing Authority on a much later date. The Tribunal after considering the submissions made by the learned AR and perusing the records observed that ....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 1166
Revocation of Customs Broker License - Forfeiture of Security deposit - levy of penalty - imputation and articles of charge, for breach of regulation 10, 11(a), 11(b), 11(d), 11(e), 11(m) and 11(n) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulations, 2013, in connection with the handling of 66 packages of readymade garments for export to Sudan and Nigeria - time-lines prescribed in Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 had not been complied with or not - HELD THAT:- It would appear that the licensing authority has assumed that the order of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (GENERAL) MUMBAI VERSUS UNISON CLEARING PVT. LTD., AND OTHERS [ 2018 (4) TMI 1053 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ] had, in fact, shifted the commencement of time-lines and, thereby, precluded challenge to non-adherence thereof. This is ....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 1135
Fraudulent availment of benefit of Duty Drawback - wilful misstatement of the particulars declared in the shipping bills - order for confiscation of the goods already exported under draw back u/s 113 (i) of the Customs Act - diversion of goods (exported) to third country or not - levy of penalty u/s 114 (iii) of the Act - Extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The show cause notice has been issued after more than 13 years from 27.04.2003, when the Customs has closed the matter by writing to Punjab National Bank, to defreeze the bank account of the appellant. Thus, the extended period is not available to Revenue, and this ground is decided in favour of the appellant and against the Revenue. The show cause notice is based on un-substantiated and vague facts, which have no legs to stand. Admittedly, the appellant have received the....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 1134
Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty disproportionately - Valuation of imported goods - gold dore bars - rejection of transaction value - re-determination of value - benefit of concessional rate of CVD @ 8% ad-valorem claimed under Sr. No. 318 of Notification 12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012 against DGFT License - whether in the facts of the commissioner the case there is a contentious conduct of the appellant on imposing fines and penalties as per the impugned order? HELD THAT:- The Bar no. 1 has been permitted for re-export even the value that has been determined is less than 1 Lakh above the value declared. The redemption filed imposed of Rs. 20 Lakhs on such differential value cannot be justified and needs to be commensurate with the differential value which is only Rs. 86,541/- in case of bar 1. Taking note of the fact that as....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 1133
Exemption from payment of CVD - import of goods declared as Platinum Sponge - articles made from recycling of precious metals or during refining process - N/N. 05/2006 -Central Excise dated 01.03.2006 (Sr. No. 25) and N/N. 12/2012 -Central Excise dated 17.03.2012 (Sr. No. 193) - HELD THAT:- Vide Notification No. 228/88-CE dated 06.07.1988, exemption from Central Excise Duty was granted to articles made from recycling of precious metals, from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon as is in excess of the value of precious metal added and the amount charged for reconditioning/re-processing etc. - Simultaneously, vide Notification No. 230/88-CE also dated 6.7.1988 (i.e. issued on the same day as Notification No. 228/88-CE,) the Central Government exempted Catalyst, Powder, Sponge, Ingots of precious metals from Central Excise D....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 1089
Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) - rejection on the ground that the claims should have been filed within one year from the payment of duty, but here the claims were filed after one year - N/N. 102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007 - Applicability of time limit as specified in Section 27 of the Customs Act 1962 - HELD THAT:- It is seen that in the absence of section 27 of the Customs Act being made applicable to notification No.102/2007-Customs dated 14.9.2007, the said provisions would not automatically apply to a claim of refund under the notification. On the same lines a clarification has also been given for the payment of interest in the circular. This being so in the absence of section 27 being made applicable in the said notification, the time limit prescribed in the section would not be automatically applicable to refunds under t....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 1088
100% EOU - Joint filing of import documents by the EOU / EPZ unit and the domestic leasing company - Warehousing of goods imported for use in the units, from payment of Customs duties - duty exemption under Notification No. 52/2003-Cus dated 31.3.2003 - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The Circular No. 88/95-Cus dated 1.8.1995 makes it clear that the Exim policy seeks to facilitate EOU s who would like to source capital goods from leasing companies. Since imports by a leasing company for supply to EOU s do not qualify for the exemption, a facility has been provided by the Exim policy for the domestic leasing company to jointly file the import documents along with the EOU to enable the import of the capital goods free of duty. Consequently, the bond for fulfilment of the conditions of the exemption notification has also to be....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 1087
Smuggling - two gold pieces of rectangular bar and one irregular shaped piece of gold of foreign origin along with the Indian currency - cogent reason of any reasonable belief with the DRI Officers to opine the recovered gold to be a foreign origin or not - burden to prove - invocation of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Absolute Confiscation - penalty. Whether Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 is invocable in the given set of circumstances? - HELD THAT:- The burden of proof shifts under Section 123, when (a) there must be goods to which the section applies; (b) the goods must have been seized; and (c) the seizure must be under a reasonable belief that they are smuggled goods - in the present case, at the time of interception and preparing of Panchanama about recovery of gold from the appellant, in his statement, as was r....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 1086
Levy of penalty u/s 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962, and u/s 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 - mis-declaration of imported goods - allegation that import export code (EC) had been procured illicitly - HELD THAT:- It is on record that bill of entry had not been filed under section 46 of Customs Act, 1962 for imported of the said goods. Accordingly, scope for invoking of section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 for confiscation of goods arising from misdeclaration and, in the absence of documents available on record, the ingredients for invoking of section 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 did not exist. All documents available till then are limited to those mandated by section 30 of Customs Act, 1962 upon carrier of goods. Penalties are not imposable on the presumption that goods are likely to be misdeclared or to be attempted to be cleared against false de....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 1034
Levy of penalty on Customs Broker u/s 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - use of false and incorrect material - discrepancies in respect of description of the goods mentioned in IGM and the description given in invoice and packing list (gross misdeclaration) - acting in good faith, exercising due diligence or existence of malafide intent in tacitly helping the importer to clear the consignment? - HELD THAT:- The role of the Customs Broker is very crucial in the process of clearance of goods as they are required to do due diligence before facilitating filing of relevant documents for clearance of goods. As a regular Customs Broker, it is not expected that he would accept any document including KYC in a mechanical manner. He is expected to exercise due diligence to satisfy about the bonafide of the importer and the documents submitted by hi....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 1033
Enforcement of bond/bank guarantee for recovery with further order to confiscate capital goods imported under EPCG Authorization - Confiscation - Redemption Fine - Penalty - HELD THAT:- It is found from the EODC dated 1.2.2019 granted by the Competent Authority is sufficient proof that the appellant have discharged their export obligation in respect of EPCG licence No. 1330001563 dated 14.03.2007. It is further found that the Court below have in a callous manner ignored the written submissions and evidence placed before it, which is highly undesirable and unbecoming of a court. The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2023 (5) TMI 1032
Revocation of Customs Broker licence - forfeiture of security amount under Regulation 14 of the Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2018 (CBLR) - imposition of penalty of Rs.50,000/- under Regulation 18 of CBLR - even after absolution of liabilities in the inquiry report is assailed - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the entire proceeding with reference to the procedure mentioned in the CBLR for revocation of licence and imposition of penalty, it is noted that the entire proceeding conducted by the Principal Commissioner of Customs (General) was irregular and unsupported by any legal provision for the reason that after serving show-cause notice on dated 25.11.2021 to the Appellant, causing and completing inquiry by 21.03.2022 concerning legality of suspension of licence made on 07.09.2021 which was admittedly done beyond 90 days without any ....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 990
Levy of penalty under Sections 112 (a) and 112 (b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - allegation of importing consignments from Hongkong and China grossly mis-declaring the description and value of the consignments using the IEC registered in the name of other person and shell companies - burden to prove the allegations on appellant, cannot be fulfilled - no corroborative statements recorded - HELD THAT:- During the course of investigation, it is found that on 25.08.2017, the appellant visited the DRI Office along with one Shri Sameer Sharma, on whose persuasion, the appellant came to the DRI Office to facilitate the clearance of the impugned consignment, but it is very strange, that when Shri Sameer Sharma has also visited DRI Office along with the appellant, why the statement of Shri Sameer Sharma, who is alleged to be tout in the import of ....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 989
Dropping of all proceedings initiated under Regulation 22 of the CHALR-2004 against the CHA M/s Gee Pee International, holder of CHA licence (revocation of CB license reversed) - Department s essential contention is that CHA s action, instead of associating with the Customs Authorities appeared to have done just opposite by resorting to suppression - HELD THAT:- The present appeal is a clear case of appalling apathy on the part of department in initiating a frivolous litigation when from para 15(iii) of Statement of Facts of their appeal no wrong doing appear to be forthcoming on the part of the CHA - whatever be the allegation regarding mis-declared value of imports, these is not a shred of evidence to impute the CHA, with this alleged imputation of misdeclaration and ascribe the onus on him. Also it is observed from the order pass....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 988
Penalty under Section 114(i) 114AA of Customs Act - seized foreign currency - whole case is made out on assumptions and presumptions, relying on the statement of Mr. Manoj Phulwani - HELD THAT:- There is no evidence that the seized and confiscated foreign currency was given by the appellant to Mr. Manoj Phulwani. It is further found that the statement of Mr. Manoj Phulwani is not reliable piece of evidence, as revenue have failed to comply with the mandate of Section 138B of the Act. Section 138B(b) requires that such person who made the statement has to be examined as witness in the adjudication proceedings, and if the adjudicating officer having regard to the circumstances of the case, admits the same in evidence, thereafter, such witness should be offered for cross examination by the noticee and only after such statement is tested....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 987
Eligibility to avail the benefit of Notification No.12/2012 dated 17.03.2012 for import of Phelps Dodge Brand Electrical Cable 132 KV (EHT Cables = Extra High Tension Cables) - adjudicating authority denied the benefit of the said Notification and assessed the normal rate of duty against the said order. HELD THAT:- The said issue came up before the Tribunal in the COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) , KOLKATA VERSUS TATA STEEL LTD. [ 2018 (6) TMI 1832 - CESTAT KOLKATA] , wherein it was held that After going through the definition as contained in McGraw Hill dictionary it appears that the same confined only to Cathode Ray Tube (CRT) which are generally used to manufacture of computer monitor and picture tube of T.V. etc. The imported cable does not belong to that category. Therefore, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside t....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 940
Smuggling - seizure of gold bars/pieces weighing 3999.590 gms - smuggled into India from Bangladesh without any legal documents - benefit of presumption under section 123 of Customs Act, 1962 - Burden to prove - reliability of retracted statements of the co-accused to establish the guilt of the Appellants, when the procedure prescribed under section 138B of the Customs Act was not followed - penalty u/s 112(a) and(b) and 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962. Whether evidences available on record prove that the gold bars/pieces were smuggled into India from Bangladesh, without any legal documents? - HELD THAT:- The Appellant stated that the gold pieces/bars were seized on the reasonable belief that they were smuggled into India from Bangladesh. The Adjudicating authority has relied upon the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the c....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 939
Classification of imported goods - Inflatable Party Items - to be classified under 39269099 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or under CTH 9503? - Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - HELD THAT:- The adjudicating authority while classifying the impugned goods i.e. Inflatable Party decoration inflatable item i.e. decoration foil balloon, held that the same is classified under CTH 9503 in terms of the report issued by NCTC dated 29.10.2021 - he report contains that the impugned goods are party decoration inflatable item, but classified under CTH 9503 instead of declared CTH 3926 and held attract BIS Registration. The said report is inconclusive as no detailed analysis has been placed on record. Further, we find that the respondent sought clarification on the import of Inflatable Party decoration inflatable item from the Ministry of C....... + More
-
2023 (5) TMI 938
Classification of imported goods - aluminous cement - to be classified under CTH 25233000 or under CTH 25239020? - benefit of N/N. 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 Sl. No. 448A and N/N. 12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012 Sl. No. 115A denied - HELD THAT:- The said issue has come up before this Tribunal in the case of M/S VESUVIUS INDIA LTD, ARUN KUMAR GIRI, SHRI THUMMA ANTONY, PLANT MANAGER, M/S VESUVIUS INDIA LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [ 2019 (11) TMI 499 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] where the Tribunal has examined the issue and held that A plain reading of the notifications shows that the exemption is available for any high alumina cement falling under chapter 25. It does not distinguish between high alumina cement and low alumina cement. If the intention of the notification was to confine it to aluminous cement falling under a specific headin....... + More
|
