|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 36 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 & Decision etc.
- 2020 (11) TMI 895 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Second Bail application - Jurisdiction - applicants were intercepted on Faizabad Road but search proceedings were conducted at the office of Lucknow which is much away from the place of interception - HELD THAT:- Considering the facts that the accused are in jail since 7.12.2018, offence is punishable upto seven years of imprisonment, charges have not been framed till date, trial in the case has not proceeded, the department has not been able to produce the punch witnesses before the adjudicating authority and also the fact that in Covid-19 situation, trial is held up which may take sufficient time, case for bail is made out. Let the applicants Manoj Kumar Soni and Sameer Gadtaula involved in Case Crime No. 06/2018 under Sections 104, 110, 111, 135 Customs Act, 1962, registered at Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, Lucknow Zonal Unit, U....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 759 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Principles of natural justice - rejection of cross-examination of petitioners - Section 138(B) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner has approached this Court prematurely without allowing the respondents to pass final orders. The petitioner has made it clear before the respondents that they intend to cross examine the witnesses, which were referred to by the respondents in the annexures attached to the show cause notice dated 17.10.2018. The respondents have rejected the request of the petitioner, but till date, final order has not been passed. If the respondents have not followed the statutory provisions as mandated under the Customs Act, 1962 by not allowing the petitioner to cross examine the witnesses, the petitioner is always at liberty to challenge the final order as and when....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 729 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Deadlocks/inordinate delays for clearance of import cargo. due to COVID-19 pandemic lockdown - the Learned Single Judge ordered that the payment of container detention charges or other penal charges by the petitioners for release of the cargo covered by Bills of Lading shall be provisional and subject to further orders in the writ petitions. - HELD THAT:- True, at the time of considering the interim relief, the Court is bound to consider whether, (1) there is prima facie case, (2) balance of convenience, and (3) likelihood of irreparable hardship. Writ court though not specifically adverted to the above, reading of the impugned order reflects the same. On the aspect of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India, that the earlier interim order in W.P. (C) No. 10177/2020, dated 25-5-2020 has not been followed, it could be deduced ....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 691 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
EPCG Scheme - non-issuance of Occupation Certificate - Construction of a multistoried building for operating a hotel - the cost included the cost of imported goods against which customs duty was not paid, as the goods imported were against 50 EPCG licenses - HELD THAT:- Since an application is pending, I am not going into the merits of the case. The EPCG committee is requested to consider the application filed by the petitioner on 9th August, 2020 within four weeks from today. The committee is also requested to pass a reasoned order after giving opportunity of hearing, not only to the petitioner but also to the customs authority, if required. As the petitioner has already alienated with the goods, imported without payment of customs duty, the customs authority may proceed to encash the bank guarantee for realising the customs duty but suc....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 690 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Direction to the respondent to finalise the bills of entry filed by the petitioner for clearance of goods - polyester knitted fabrics - period 2013 to 2016 - HELD THAT:- Keeping in view the limited prayer made in the writ petition, the same is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to finalise the bills of entry filed by the petitioner for clearance of goods namely polyester knitted fabrics during the period 2013 to 2016 within a period of six weeks - Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (11) TMI 689 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Reclaim of goods after surrender of rights in warehoused Goods (after import) u/s 23(3) - Due to increased customs duty, the plaintiffs could not take the delivery of the goods - Decree of mandatory injunction directing the defendants to deliver 58 bales, 76 bales and 61 bales respectively of the goods amenable to customs duty - defendants took the plea that the plaintiffs themselves have surrendered the goods in terms of Section 23(3) of the Customs Act vide letter dated 10-12-1985 and therefore, no cause for the plaintiffs to file the suit was made out - Section 23 of Customs Act - HELD THAT:- Learned Counsel for the respondents could not show any such document or evidence that they have availed of the remedy provided under the Customs Act. The Customs Act which being a special Act has provided remedial action against the orders of the ....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 688 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - non-deposit of pre-deposit amount - Principles of Natural Justice - grounds urged in the appeal is that the third respondent ought to have extended an opportunity to the petitioner to cross-examine the officers who allegedly conducted search and seizure proceedings - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the appeal is dismissed on the ground that the petitioner did not deposit 50% of the demand in terms of the order dated 2-2-2016. It must also be mentioned that the directors of the petitioner’s company also did not deposit 50% of the penalty imposed on them, and further it must also be mentioned that there is no dispute that none appeared for the petitioner on 18-10-2016 when the appeal was listed for orders on an application filed for recall of the order dated 2-2-2016. The CESTAT’s order is not an ord....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 687 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Smuggling - gold chain - gold bangles - gold anklet - Reopening of adjudication proceedings - section 124 of Customs Act - HELD THAT:- There is no force and merit in the submission of the Learned Counsel for the petitioner. The reference to Section 124 of the Customs Act in not issuing any notice in writing for confiscation or imposition of the penalty cannot be agitated after the lapse of three years. Alleged non-adherence to the provisions of Section 124 by issuing a separate notice before imposition of penalty and confiscation, cannot be raised for the first time in the writ petition, that too after a gap of three years. However, on going through the adjudication order of Ext. P3, the petitioner suffered a statement which was not found to be sufficient and was served with Ext. P2 summons to appear and explain along with the documents r....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 637 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Gross overvaluation to fraudulently avail export benefits - Petitioner placed in the Denied Entity List (DEL) - Availment of fraudulent Special MEIS benefits - misdeclaration and forgery of documents - HELD THAT:- Any refusal to grant, suspend or cancel any licence, certificate, scrip or any instrument bestowing financial or fiscal benefits, can only be “by an order in writing”. In fact, Section 9(4) expressly mandates that suspension or cancellation of any licence, certificate, scrip or any instrument bestowing financial or fiscal benefits can only be “for good and sufficient reasons”. The requirement of giving reasons cannot therefore, be dispensed with and is mandatory - Even otherwise, it is now firmly established that even an administrative decision having civil consequences must record reasons as a mandatory ....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 636 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Permission for re-export of imported diamonds on paying the penalty and redemption fine - Import of rough diamonds without KP (Kimberly Process) certificate - challenge on the ground that there was only a procedural defect in the import carried out and there is now a certificate issued as required under Exhibit P5 Circular - HELD THAT:- Exhibit P10 is not a KP Certificate issued for the export of goods from UAE, which alone would validate its import into India. Exhibit P10 is a mere 'Technical Certificate' issued for sending back the goods to UAE, from which country the goods were sourced from. The certificate enables export, to carry out which the appellant would have to first get the goods released by paying the redemption fee and penalty since already the goods are confiscated. A reading of Exhibit P5, hence, makes it mandatory....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 635 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Physical presence of the petitioner for enquiry - Detention of goods - permission to petitioners to have food and medicines if enquiry by the officers of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence Office (DRI) were to stretch for long duration - HELD THAT:- Food and medicines are essential requirements. Shri. Aravind has fairly submitted that petitioners may carry food and medicine. This petition is disposed of with following: (i) Petitioners shall appear on 17.11.2020 in DRI office for further enquiry; (ii) They shall be permitted to carry their own food and medicines; and (iii) Enquiry shall be conducted during the office hours and completed as expeditiously as possible.
- 2020 (11) TMI 593 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Levy of Light Dues Charges and Port Charges - applicant has made a grievance that respondent No.1 is levying “light dues charges’ for the entire one months’ period though the ship was delivered to the applicant on 11.11.2020 - HELD THAT:- All the contentions of the parties regarding the legality and justifiability of the quantum of charges claimed by the Port Trust can be considered while determining the entitlement of the parties to the amount to be deposited with the office of Sheriff of Mumbai. All the contentions are, thus, kept open for consideration. The applicant - M/s. NKD Maritime Limited shall deposit a sum of Rs. ₹ 1,58,59,737/- with the office of Sheriff of Mumbai by tomorrow, 19.11.2020 - matter be listed on 2nd December 2020.
- 2020 (11) TMI 554 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Revocation of Customs Broker Licence - imposition of penalty - contention in the Writ Petition is essentially that if the respondent wanted to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer, then the notice issued to the petitioner in that regard should have clearly indicated that the respondent was proposing to disagree with the findings of the Enquiry Officer - HELD THAT:- Ext.P9 order passed by the respondent cannot be legally sustained. When an Enquiry Report is furnished before the respondent in proceedings under the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 and the Enquiry Report is in favour of the petitioner, then the notice subsequently issued by the respondent ought to have indicated very clearly as to whether the respondent was proposing to accept the Enquiry Report or not accept the same. Only such a notice would have ind....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 519 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Refund claim - petitioner had deposited the TED which is not required in case of deemed exports, but in the absence of the provision of refund in the foreign trade policy, claim was rejected - whether the petitioner who was not required to deposit Terminal Excise Duty (TED) for export of goods from one unit to another, can the authorities remain as a mute spectator is not refunding the amount on the ground of any provision in the Foreign Trade Regulation and Development Act, 1992 with consequential relief of refund or alternatively quashing Ext.P2 letter dated 5.11.2019? HELD THAT:- No doubt, under the different provisions of the Act, an alternative remedy has been provided for the affected parties to seek the vindication of the grievances, if any, but the quasi judicial authorities are also legitimately expected to take the congnizance o....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 497 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Permission for withdrawal of petition - Levy of Penalty u/s 112(a) and 114(AA) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- These Writ Petitions are dismissed as withdrawn with a clarification that it would not preclude the right of the Petitioner to raise same contentions in W.P. Nos.30376 and 30377 of 2016 before this Court.
- 2020 (11) TMI 442 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Rejection of Application for Settlement of Case - Revision / Reduction of declared value during the course of hearing - It was the contention of the respondent that since the imported goods are notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, it was not open for the petitioner to settle the case under Section 127B of the Act. HELD THAT:- The petitioner had originally admitted the liability of ₹ 83,27,539/- and interest of ₹ 23,82,092/-. However, during the course of hearing, the petitioner wanted to reduce the aforesaid amount to ₹ 77,81,844/- and the proportionate interest to ₹ 15,50,791/- vide their letter/submission dated 12-6-2015. The petitioner therefore wanted the 1st respondent to order refund of ₹ 15,92,037/- along with interest of ₹ 8,31,301/- - It is evident that the petitioner has not clearly ....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 397 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - stand of the respondents is that the petitioner is having a remedy under section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 to prefer an appeal - section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 - Seizure of goods - HELD THAT:- As there is a remedy of appeal, without averting to the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of with a liberty to the petitioner to prefer an appeal in accordance with law. The respondents shall make all possible endeavour to decide the appeal at an early date in accordance with law.
- 2020 (11) TMI 392 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Bail Application - case of the prosecution is that, petitioner has been organizing Indian Operations based in Kerala and has been involved in illegal smuggling of gold in the form of compound gold pieces - HELD THAT:- As the investigating agency is required to unearth the ramifications of the offences, release of the petitioner at this stage is likely to hamper the investigation and hence, petition cannot be allowed. Direction is issued to the State/Union territory to constitute a High Powered Committee comprising of (i) Chairman of the State Legal Services Committee, (ii) the Principal Secretary (Home/Prison) by whatever designation is known as, (iii) Director General of Prison(s), to determine which class of prisoners can be released on parole or an interim bail for such period as may be thought appropriate. For instance, the State/Unio....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 362 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Grant of Bail - smuggling of foreign origin gold - Sections 135(1)(a)(i)(A) read with Section 104,110,111,119,123 of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the parties, facts and circumstances of the case, accusation and the nature of supporting evidence, reasonable apprehension of tampering the witnesses and prima facie satisfaction of the court in support of the charges, without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, the applicant is entitled to be released on bail. Applicant is directed to be released subject to conditions allowed - application allowed.
- 2020 (11) TMI 361 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Smuggling - imported cigarettes - opportunity to cross-examine the person whose statements were recorded, not provided - main contention of the petitioners is that there has been a violation of principles of natural justice by the 2nd respondent by relying on the statements made under Sections 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 without permitting the petitioners to cross-examine them - levy of penalty u/s 112(a)(i)/112(b)(i) also under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- There is no doubt that where a plea of violation of principles of natural justice by denying a party an opportunity to cross examine witnesses is raised in proceedings under the Customs Act,1962 or similar legislation, the question of prejudice suffered to such party by such denial has to be gone into. If there is no prejudice caused by such denial, no relief c....... + More
|
