Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases Customs HC Customs - HC
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

Customs - High Court - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 6622 Records

  • 2018 (2) TMI 1200 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    M/s. Welspun Corp. Limited Versus Union of India through Joint Secretary and 3 Others

    Cancellation of redemption certificates - imposition of fiscal penalty - Held that - from a perusal of the affidavit in support and the annexures thereto it is found that none of the factual developments post institution of the writ petition have been denied or controverted by the Revenue - Once identically situate, parties have obtained the relief and in terms of the order of the CESTAT, as confirmed by the Hon ble Supreme Court and these certif....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1199 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT

    M/s OM TRADERS AND M/s THUNGA TRADING CO Versus THE UNION OF INDIA, NEW DELHI AND OTHERS

    Issuance of guidelines for Registration of Sale Contracts for Import of Poppy Seeds from China - Public Notice No.PS-11/2016 (Annexure- W) - Amendment in the condition No.3(c) of the import policy, imposing quantitative restriction - issuance of guidelines for registration of sale contracts for import of poppy seeds from Turkey and China Governments - selection of applicants through draw of lots - validity of public notices dated 4.11.2016 and 5........ + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1198 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    JITENDER BHASIN Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND ANR.

    Condonation of delay - Whether the CESTAT was right in passing the order dated 2nd February, 2017 and dismissing the application for rectification on the ground that the Tribunal does not have any power of review and hear the appeal on merits notwithstanding the fact that the appellant had filed an application that there was error apparent on the face of the order dated 20th October, 2014? - Held that - there was an error apparent in the order da....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1079 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    M/s. Veracious Folks Overseas Ltd. Shri. Tejbir Bala, Director of M/s. Veracious Folks Overseas Ltd., M/s. Indus Valley Collections, M/s. East West Gallery, M/s. Salora International, M/s. United Colors of India, M/s. Kaushik Enterprises Versus The Commissioner of Customs (EDC)

    Duty drawback - allegation was that the petitioners have availed excess drawback - opportunity of personal hearing sought by the petitioner - Held that - The powers under the provisions of the Customs Act and the relevant Regulations do not envisage piecemeal hearing to render a decision in a controverted manner. All that this Court can do is to direct the respondent to consider the preliminary issues as first among other issues that the petition....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 1078 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Versus Raju Arora

    Principles of natural justice - It is urged that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence in correct perspective. Summons to appear before the Investigating Agency were issued by speed post and were duly served upon the respondent - Held that - The trial court committed no error to observe that before initiating criminal proceedings against the respondent, the prosecution/Investigating Agency was expected to ensure that the summons were du....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 853 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Hashem Aligholipour Hammami Alias Salbas Selva Versus Union of India and Ors.

    Interest u/s 27(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Iranian National - Baggage Rules - foreign currency - Smuggling - section 27 and 27(a) of the CA - Held that - any person claiming refund of any duty or interest paid by him or borne by him may make an application in such form as may be prescribed for such refund to the named authority before the expiry of one year from the date of payment of such duty or interest. How that application should be made,....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 852 - KERALA HIGH COURT

    Union of India Versus Bhandari Powerlines Private Limited

    Drawback u/s 75 of the CA 1962 - the second ingredient copper that goes into the manufacture of their products is procured indigenously from local producers. Since the products exported by the respondent contained copper, the respondent claimed drawback - powers conferred by Section 75(1A) of CA. - Held that - power u/s 75(1A) is to declare through a notification to be published in the official gazette that the material contained in a particular ....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 760 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Micromax Informatics Ltd. Versus The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Air Cargo) , The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Refunds Section)

    Refund claim - rejection for want of re-assessment under Section 27 of the Customs, Act, 1962 - Held that - As this Court has found that the impugned order is not consonance with the earlier direction issued by the Court, in W.P.No.3486 of 2016, dated 18.04.2017, and the Department themselves have realized the same, this Court is inclined to allow the Writ Petition - the matter is remanded to the Lower Adjudicating Authority for de nova adjudicat....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 759 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    M/s. Knitwin International Versus The Deputy Commissioner of Customs, The Superintendent of Customs

    Drawback - time limitation - demand on the ground that the petitioner failed to produce evidence of realization of export proceeds in respect of the exported goods within the period allowed under the Foreign Exchange Maintenance Act (FEMA) and Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Drawback Rules, 1995 - Held that - if the petitioner produces evidence to show that the sale proceeds have been realized within the time provided by the R.B.I., which i....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 754 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

    Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) , Jaipur Versus Indian Airlines Ltd.

    Whether the Tribunal can override the statutory provisions enshrined in the law inasmuch as the second proviso to Section 114A of Customs Act, 1962, has been ignored in reducing the penalty wherein specific provisions are enlisted that the benefit of reduced penalty shall be available only when penalty is paid within 30 days of the date of communication of the Order which is not in the present matter? - Held that - the issue squarely covered by t....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 753 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    D. Srinivasa Rao Versus Asstt. Commr. of Cus., Prosecution Unit (Sea) , Chennai

    Smuggling - illegal export of red sanders in artifact form - Held that - only where a company, which as per the explanation includes also a firm, was found guilty of an offence would those in charge of and responsible to it in the conduct of its affairs, be liable - As in the instant case, the firm M/s. Rare Crafts, of which petitioners are partners has not been arrayed as an accused, no liability could be fastened to petitioners. - revision allo....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 752 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Shalu Chadha Versus Additional Commissioner of Customs, Goa

    Smuggling - Gold - petitioners case is that while it is true that they were carrying gold, this was in no sense contraband and there was no attempt to smuggle gold - denial of opportunity to declare their goods because they were purportedly arrested at the aerobridge ramp at the exit of the aircraft even before they arrived at the immigration counters and before they could approach the custom desks to declare their goods - Held that - it is alway....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 751 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT

    Principal Commr. of Customs (General) Versus Durga Clearing Pvt. Ltd.

    Suspension of CHA License - Regulation 19(2) of CBLR, 2013 - time limitation - Held that - In fact, there is a gross delay in concluding the enquiry for which there is no explanation. Even as of today, no final order has been passed on the basis of the Enquiry Report. Therefore, there is no reason to interfere with the findings of fact and ultimate order passed by the Tribunal - appeal dismissed........ + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 750 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Roverco Apparel Co. (P) Ltd. Versus Deputy Commissioner of Cus., Chennai

    Recovery of differential duty - fulfillment of export obligation - Held that - Admittedly, the petitioner has not replied to the show cause notices issued to them. The redemption certificates, which are required to be submitted by the petitioner, to fulfil the export obligations, has been obtained by the petitioner, only after the first respondent-Original Authority passed the orders-in-original - in order to provide an opportunity to the petitio....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 749 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT

    Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) , Jodhpur Versus R.S.G. Stones, Jaipur

    EPCG Scheme - Whether the goods declared for export under EPCG Scheme as Marble Block, which were subsequently found as Silicified Limestone on the basis of GSI test report are to be treated as Marble Block ? - Held that - The man has taken license or mining lease from State of Rajasthan as a marble exporter but merely chemical test has given it limestone as discussed by the Tribunal by referring to meaning of Wikipedia the marble is also one kin....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 588 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    S.B. International Versus The Assistant Director, Directorate Of Revenue Intelligence And Ors.

    Jurisdiction - power of DRI to issue directions - Freezing of petitioner s Current account - it is suspected that the petitioner is connected/involved in illegal import of tyres - whether the DRI has the jurisdiction to issue such directions without passing any orders under the provisions of the Customs Act? - Held that - Chapter XIII of the Customs Act contains provisions regarding search, seizure and arrest. In terms of Section 105(1) of the Cu....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 495 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    N. Hyder Ali Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I) , The Additional Commissioner of Customs (Airport) , O/o the Principal Commissioner of Customs, The Joint Secretary (RP) , Departmentof Revenue

    Jurisdiction - case of petitioner is that the officer, who is manning the office of the third respondent, is equivalent in rank to the Commissioner of Customs and that therefore, he cannot decide the matter - Held that the petitioner is unable to lay his hands on the Notification of the Central Board of Excise and Customs appointing an officer in the rank of Principal Commissioner as the Revisional Authority under the Customs Act and N/N. 27/17 C....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 422 - DELHI HIGH COURT

    Lotus Herbals Limited Versus The Chief Commissioner Of Custom & Others

    Relief to prayer 30(ii) and 30(iii) of the plaint - Held that - the defendant no. 3 has no real prospect of defending the claim as it has neither entered appearance nor filed its written statement or denied the documents of the plaintiff, this Court is of the view that there is no need to relegate the plaintiff to lead ex parte evidence - the present suit is decreed qua defendant no.3 in accordance with prayer 30(ii) and 30(iii) of the plaint alo....... + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 421 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    Sashi Prakash Lohia Versus The Commissioner of Customs, The Appraiser (Customs Air Cargo Unit)

    Penalty u/s 112(a) of the CA, 1962 - allegation pertains to the genuinity and legality of the DEPB licence - cross-examination - Held that - the petitioner cannot insist upon the cross examination of the Investigating Officers - the petitioner would state that he had only dealt with the DEPB scripts and purchased the same from Mr.Satish Mohan Agarwal, New Delhi and he is no way connected with the allegations made in the SCN - petition dismissed........ + More


  • 2018 (2) TMI 339 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

    The Chairman, Central Board of Excise and Customs, The Commissioner of Customs (Imports) , The Assistant Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Versus K.P. Prem Ananth

    Grant of CHA License - Regulation 9 of the Customs House Agents Licencing Regulations, 2004 - validity of new regulations issued in the year 2004 vide order dated 01.10.2010 - Held that - identical issue decided in the case of SUNIL KOHLI & ORS Versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS 2012 (10) TMI 638 - SUPREME COURT , where it was held that The examinations held under the 1984 Regulations did not get nullified with the enactment of the 2004 Regulati....... + More


1........
 
 
 
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version