Advanced Search Options
Customs - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 63 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 (2) TMI 1492 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Smuggling - Gold - opportunity of hearing sought - petitioners had submitted the relevant documents like GST invoices, vouchers and according to them, they had complied with all statutory laws for transition of the business - HELD THAT:- The writ petition is disposed off by issuing direction to the second respondent to take decision on Exts.P7 and P8 representations, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or duly constituted representative, after taking consideration of all the relevant documents, in accordance with law.
- 2020 (2) TMI 1453 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Imposition of Fiscal Penalty - supplies made by the petitioner to SEZ - fulfilment of conditions of the license by importing the capital goods at concessional rate of Customs Duty in violation of Exim policy or not - fulfilment of export obligation or not - Rule 23 of the SEZ Rules, 2006 - HELD THAT:- The appellant was required to follow the Handbook of Procedures. Therefore, since the paragraph 5.13(b), of the Hand Book of Procedures governs the procedure for the fulfilment of the export obligations under of Chapter 5 of the EPCG scheme, the supply to the Nokia SEZ, shall be governed by para 5.13(b) - in light of para 5.13(b) of the HBP, the appellant has fulfilled its export obligation as mandated by the [EPCG] scheme. It is trite that when a method has been laid down, has laid down, it necessarily prohibits the doing of the act in any ....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1443 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Non-adjudication of show cause notice within reasonable period - Seeking recalling of final judgment in Harkaran Dass Vedpal Vs. Union of India [2019 (7) TMI 1307 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] - retroactive amendment of Section 28(9) of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- Recalling of our order dated 18.12.2019 in the present case would amount to recalling order passed in the case of Harkaran Dass Vedpal which is already under challenge before Hon’ble Supreme Court. Thus, present application deserves to be dismissed on this ground. The judgment in Harkaran Dass Vedpal (Supra) is based upon two grounds/issues and Applicant is disputing only one issue. If the contention of Applicant is accepted still our order dated 18.12.2019 cannot be recalled because Applicant is not disputing second issue i.e. non-adjudication within reasonable perio....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1437 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Entitlement for benefits of PAP under Policy Guideline by Circular dated 20.03.2017 - HELD THAT:- The learned Advocate appearing for the Corporation on instructions from the Sub-Engineer who is present in Court, states that the Corporation is willing to provide the benefits of PAP to the Petitioner under the Policy Guidelines by Circular dated 20.03.2017 No.ch E/DP/19922/ES. The statement is accepted as an undertaking given to this Court. In view thereof, nothing survives in the above Writ Petition since the prayers sought are granted to the Petitioner. The Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
- 2020 (2) TMI 1384 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Prohibition from charging demurrage from the petitioners during the period of delayed filling of the counter-affidavit by respondents - Regulation 6(1)(l) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 - HELD THAT:- The issue at hand, is squarely covered in M/S. GLOBAL IMPEX THROUGH ITS PARTNER, SHREE SHYAM ENTERPRISES, SURENDER KUMAR JAIN THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, BISHT INTERNATIONAL THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, ROOP SINGH ENTERPRISES THROUGH ITS PROPRIETOR, VERSUS MANAGER, CELEBI IMPORT SHED AND ANR., UNION OF INDIA & ORS. [2019 (12) TMI 957 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where the prayer, of the petitioner, for issuance of directions to the respondents, not to collect any demurrage, in respect of the goods, imported by the petitioner and in the custody of CELEBI, is bereft of merit. DCSC is entitled, in light of the Regulation 6(1)(l) o....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1376 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Cancellation of the petitioner’s advance licence - suspension of the IEC of the petitioner till the amount of customs duty plus interest claimed to be due is paid by the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Clause D of Hand Book of procedures in respect of para 2.4 of the Export and Import Policy 2002-2007 provides that even the fuel is included as an import under SION, it should not be taken into account while fixing the DEPB rate for such products against which fuel has been allowed as an input. The petitioner has imported fuel under the Advance Licence Scheme and even admittedly he has not imported any other raw material under that scheme. The petitioner has not availed any benefit under the Advance Licence Scheme. Once the petitioner performs export obligation of ₹ 30 crores on the cost of ₹ 2.10 crores which he has incurred for....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1374 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Refund of demurrage charges - It is alleged by the petitioner that the demurrages were paid by the petitioner for no fault of the petitioner - whether the Court can direct the other respondents to pay/remit the demurrage charges? - HELD THAT:- A bare reading of the above makes it abundantly clear, that the Customs authorities cannot direct waiver of demurrage, which can only be done by the custodian (the CCI here). Moreover, merely because the Customs authority expends a reasonable time in dispensation of their sovereign functions of search, seizure and investigation, cannot lead to transference of liability to pay demurrage, to the Customs authorities. Refund of excess Customs duty - HELD THAT:- We are not inclined to exercise our extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, when an alternative efficacious r....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1364 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Levy of Fiscal penalties - scheme of amalgamation sanctioned by the High Court of Bombay - HELD THAT:- The impugned order was passed on 25-5-2006 and the Scheme was sanctioned by BIFR on 3-6-2003. After the said Scheme became operational, the present appellant has not availed any remedy before the Authorities concerned under the Act to press for such waiver on merits. It is not even explained before the Court as to how the present appellant which stepped into the shoes of KMBL after its merger with it, can revive the cause of KMBL, after KMBL had withdrawn the challenge by withdrawal of the writ petition before the Division Bench of this Court without reserving any such liberty to reagitate the issue. Hence, the Learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition. The appellant herein is unable to show any of its right being violated. Ad....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1362 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Revocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of part or whole of the security - imposition of penalty - It is the contention of the Department that the respondent had attended to customs work on behalf of one of the fraudulent exporters by name M/s. Shakthishka Exports and that the person who actually handled the export one Shri S. Uma Mahesh, a G-Card holder, was investigated by DRI - HELD THAT:- A reading of Regulation 18 of the Regulations indicates that the various options/punishments indicated therein are in the alternative and it is not mandatory for the Adjudicating Authority to revoke the licence of a Customs Broker for all infractions of the Regulations. The reason assigned by the Tribunal, i.e., that there was retraction of the statement made by the witness about subletting of the licence by the respondent to him stating th....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1360 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Smuggling - Gold Biscuits - Foreign Origin Goods - increase from 1166g to 1283g - confiscation - penalty - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the writ petitioner could not discharge the burden at all since it was impossible for the writ petitioner to suggest that the 1283g of gold recovered from him were attributable to the 1166g of gold that had been purchased by him from G. Seal & Co. some eighteen months back. Since there was no meaningful defence or any modicum of an explanation rendered by the writ petitioner as to how such writ petitioner came to be in possession of the gold that was found on his person, the order passed by the adjudicating authority and the order passed by the Tribunal cannot be faulted. The order of the Tribunal assailed in the writ petition clearly recorded cogent grounds as to why the Tribunal disbelieved the ....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1332 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Time sought to place on record the decisions in support of the contention that a contemplated show cause is a proceeding under the Section 110(5) of the Act - HELD THAT:- Stand over to 12 March 2020. To be listed at the bottom of the admission board.
- 2020 (2) TMI 1318 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Validity of Detention Order - Smuggling of Gold - inordinate delay in passing the detention order - COFEPOSA Act - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand, the last and first prejudicial act recorded against the petitioner was in the month of January, 2014 to July, 2015, whereas the detention order is passed on 2.8.2019, which is after a period of four years. As such test of proximity is not mechanical test by merely counting number of months between the offending acts and the order of detention. But, when there is undue delay, than the Court has to scrutinize whether the detaining authority has satisfactorily examined such a delay occurred. No any reasonable explanation is provided by the detaining authority and in absence of reasonable explanation to show that the casual connection has been broken and it was till alive at the time of passing th....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1302 - TELANGANA HIGH COURT
Return of Bank Guarantee - finalization of provisional assessment - return sought on the ground that they did not initiate any retroactive check under Rule 7(c) of the Customs Tariff (Determination of Original of Goods under the Preferential Trade Agreement between Governments of Member States of the Association of South-East Asian Nations (ASEAN) and the Republic of India) Rules, 2009 notified on 31.12.2009 - HELD THAT:- Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, counsel appearing for respondents, states that there was no retroactive check in terms of Rule 7(c) of the Rules referred to above, and the R.T.I. information furnished to the petitioner on 06.11.2019 confirms the same - In view of the same, since the time limit of two (02) months as laid down in Rule 7(1) has expired, it is the duty of respondents to complete provisional assessment and also retur....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1266 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Amendment in shipping bills - Benefit under Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) - petitioner inadvertently opted for “No” instead of “Yes” in the shipping bills - Corrections to be made is denied - HELD THAT:- This very issue as to whether the inadvertent error of not claiming benefit under the MEIS was fatal to the claim itself has come to be considered by learned single Judges of this Court in M/S. PASHA INTERNATIONAL VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, THE ASSISTANT/DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (EXPORTS) , THE JOINT DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE [2019 (2) TMI 1187 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] where reliance was placed in the case of in the case of SAINT GOBAIN INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2018 (11) TMI 536 - KERALA HIGH COURT], to hold that petitioner shall produce the said NOC before the 4th re....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1265 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Provisional release of goods - refund of IGST - lifting and removal of seizure - HELD THAT:- Although, it is evident that investigation is under process, the provisions of section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, requires such investigation to be completed within a certain time frame. In case it relates to seizure of goods, documents and things, this time frame is initially for a period of six months which can be extended for a further period, not exceeding six months. As such, it is incumbent upon the concerned authorities to complete the investigation within the time frame as specified under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. The writ petition is disposed off with a direction upon the concerned respondent authorities to complete the investigation at an early date and ensure that the ad....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1264 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Admissibility of application - issuance of show cause-cum-demand notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - guilty of suppression of material facts - case of the transferee is that they are not liable on the show cause notice - HELD THAT:- The tribunal in its impugned order dated 22nd December, 2015 ought to have followed that decision and rules in favour of the appellant but did not do so - This appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 is formally admitted. Application disposed off.
- 2020 (2) TMI 1213 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Levy of Anti-dumping duty on imports of Naphthalene - Validity of Notification No.14/35/2015-DGAD dated 01.06.2016 - allegation that the notification is without authority of law, contrary to the Act and the Rules and based on assumptions and presumptions, without any basis and without examination of preconditions of initiation of a valid investigation - imposition of ADD in respect of imports of Crude and Refined Naphthalene. The petitioners have essentially challenged the Notification dated 01.06.2016, whereunder the respondent no.2 at the behest of respondent no.3 initiated investigation in respect of product called Naphthalene in both its forms namely Crude and Refined Naphthalene being imported from the countries mentioned in the Notification. The respondent no.3 did not fulfill the requisite criterion for being characterized the dom....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1171 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Provisional release of seized goods - goods were seized on the ground of over valuation - HELD THAT:- Respondent Nos.1 and 2 to decide the claim of the petitioner under the Customs Act, 1962 for provisional release of goods in accordance with law, rules, regulations, Government policy applicable to the facts of the present case and as early as possible and practicable preferably within a period of two weeks. Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (2) TMI 1170 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - service of order - application for the condonation of delay rejected stating that the Order-in-Appeal was despatched on 11.04.2014 through Speed Post and there is a huge delay of 4 1/2 years in filing the Appeal - HELD THAT:- The learned Tribunal has not mentioned anything about the acknowledgment of the speed post containing Order-In-Appeal, to the Assessee. If the order would have despatched in 'Speed post with Acknowledgment Due', the Department ought to have produced the Acknowledgment Card bearing the signatures of the Assessee. The learned Tribunal only got satisfied with the fact that the Order-In-Appeal was sent to the Assessee through Speed Post and has dismissed the Application for Condonation of delay, without verifying the fact that the Order-In-Appeal has been received by the As....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1169 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Demand of interest on the sale proceeds of the auction conducted - respondents submits that the petitioner has no locus standi to file the present Writ Petition under Section 226 of the Constitution of India - HELD THAT:- The petitioner became entitled to the amount finally pursuant to the direction of the Tribunal. Section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides a procedure for sale of imported goods and application of sale proceeds thereof - the Section prescribes on the manner in which the proceeds of the sale of the confiscated goods has to be appropriated and adjusted. After adjustment of the proceeds, balance if any, has to be paid back to the owner of the goods. Since there was delay in paying the amount to the owner. Section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962 was amended and the above proviso was inserted vide Section 52 of the Finance Ac....... + More