Advanced Search Options
Customs - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 51 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 (3) TMI 1306 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Re-quantification of penalty imposed under u/s 116 of CA for short landing of goods - It is the contention of the petitioner that the original Authority had wrongly calculated the discharge quantity to arrive at the short landed quantity for the purpose of imposition of penalty under Section 116 of the Customs Act, 1962 - tolerance limit of 1% to .5% was considered - applicability of Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925 - HELD THAT:- Though the provision of the Indian Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1925, codifies the Hague Rules, Protocol of Signature, (Brussels, 25 August 1925), it has no application for discharge of imported cargo within India from vessels coming from outside the country - The Hon’ble Supreme Court in East and West Steamship & Co. George v. S.K.R., [1960 (5) TMI 38 - SUPREME COURT], has also noted the Sect....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1219 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Suspension of CHA License - mis-description of the goods or the erroneous classification of the goods - By the judgment and order impugned dated December 15, 2017, the writ petition was allowed since the very basis of the order of suspension had been destroyed upon the order of adjudication of September 12, 2017 being set aside qua the first respondent by the appellate order of October 26, 2017 - HELD THAT:- As of date, the prejudice caused by the original order of adjudication of September 12, 2017 has been wiped clean as against the agent. In such scenario, no reasonable authority could have suspended the licence of the agent or instituted proceedings therefor without the order dated October 26, 2017 being challenged or without first having such order annulled. At any rate, the entire issue has now been resolved and at the level of the ....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1218 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Seeking quashing FIR - foreign made liquor and beer - Offence punishable under Sections 175, 176 and 186 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 - it is alleged that the present applicants though were demanded to furnish the document, record, pass permit regarding foreign made liquor and beer, they did not give the same and also obstructed the investigation - HELD THAT:- since the bonded warehouse was situated within the territorial jurisdiction of the Customs Department and the Central Government, without obtaining prior permission of the Customs Department or the Central Government, the police has no authority to seal or to carry out any search & seizure procedure. If any offence is found to be committed, at the most, the police can request for the same to the Department or to the Central Government. The police has no authority to carry out ....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1217 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Smuggling - Gold Bars - acquittal of accused - offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 85 of the Gold Control Act, 1968 - HELD THAT:- The trial court has held that the accused no.12 is entitled to acquittal as he is arraigned only because of the confessional statement of the co-accused. The trial court in the impugned judgment has placed reliance on the aforesaid judgment and in the considered opinion of this Court, such reliance cannot be said to be misplaced, which is rendered in the case of the co-accused. The present accused no.14 has only been arraigned because of the statement of the co-accused no.12, who has been acquitted by the trial court - The confession recorded of the accused no.1 vide Exh.100 reveals that the same does not meet with the parameters of Section 26 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It is also the....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1159 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Detention of goods - levy of Anti-Dumping Duty - non-finalization of provisional assessment - HELD THAT:- There would be no useful purpose in seeking counter or keeping the writ petition pending, in view of the notification dated 14.06.2017 and corrigendum dated 25.01.2019 which is co-relating to the name of the exporter/producer in the invoices. The 2nd respondent to take decision on the series of representations referred to Ext.P10 to P16 in accordance with law, after affording opportunity of hearing to the petitioners - Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (3) TMI 1067 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Facility of paying terminal handing charges and other charges of the port terminal directly to the terminal operators instead of shifting through the Shipping Lines - Allegation that impugned SCN issued without taking into consideration the pre-negotiated contracts already entered between the first petitioner's members and clients and without considering that it has no locus and/or authority for payment of the charges - HELD THAT:- On a perusal of the provisions of 141(2) of the Customs Act, no doubt certain procedure is being prescribed with regard to storage and arrival of the consignment but the argument that the notice having been issued without jurisdiction is not able to cut eyes on plain and simple reading of the provisions of Section 143AA inserted with effect from 29th of March 2018. On a perusal of the provision of section 1....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1066 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Denial of MEIS benefit - denial of benefit on the ground that the writ petitioners have omitted to check the Box stating 'Yes', indicating their intention to avail reward under the Scheme, in the specific Box provided in the software intended for uploading details to the web portal of the Central Government - HELD THAT:- Even if there exists no claim for the benefit under the MEIS, naturally there will be physical verification with respect to the goods consigned by the exporter. Therefore the details of the shipping as well as the necessary verification preceding the export were already done at that time would clearly indicate the identity of the goods exported. If the identity of the goods exported would reveal that the goods exported are those goods with respect to which the benefit under MEIS is allowable, there is no necessity....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1065 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - appeal was dismissed on 22nd August 2017 on the ground that they had failed to re-export the re-imported goods in accordance with the notification no. 158/95-CUS dated 14th November 1995 - HELD THAT:- According to the tribunal, the preventive officer had certified compliance when it ought to have been done by the Deputy Commissioner/Assistant Commissioner. Therefore, this alleged compliance with the condition was suspect before the tribunal. This is indicative of foul play - This Court is not empowered to reappraise these facts in this jurisdiction. There is no perversity in such finding. It is a plausible one. Appeal dismissed.
- 2020 (3) TMI 1064 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Territorial Jurisdiction - transfer of appeal from the South Zonal Bench of Appellate Tribunal at Karnataka to the West Zonal Bench of Appellate Tribunal at Mumbai - HELD THAT:- As far as the relief of the petitioner for transfer of the appeal from CESTAT at Bangaluru to Mumbai is concerned, the same cannot be accepted by this Court as this court do not have any jurisdiction to pass such order. At this stage, the learned counsel submits that he would not press this prayer but would make an appropriate application to the Appellate Tribunal purportedly under sub-section 6 of Section 129(C) of the Customs Act, 1962. Directions to not to hear the appeal by the Technical member whose appointment was challenged by the Advocate of the petitioner in the honourable Supreme Court - HELD THAT:- Not only the law of equity but the interest of justice ....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 1063 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Permission to petitioner or persons claiming under it to destuff the cargo from the containers - refrain and desist from demanding, collecting or in any way recovering or appropriating' container detention charges' and 'ground rent' or any other charges - HELD THAT:- It is yet to be decided whether the definition of the importer has to be strictly interpreted in the manner as attempted to be put across at this stage when the matter has been referred to a larger bench. This court cannot change the terms and conditions of the contract and supplement the same as has been attempted to be done. Petition dismissed.
- 2020 (3) TMI 1013 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Imposition of penalty u/s 144(iii) and Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 - grievance on the part of the petitioner is that no readjudication has taken place and after 8 years of such order by CESTAT, the Commissioner of Customs, Navrangpura, Ahmedabad has issued letter and once again has issued show cause notice for readjudication of the matter, which was scheduled to be heard on 18.02.2020 - HELD THAT:- Noticing the fact that these petitions are preferred against the show cause notice relying on the ratio rendered in case of SIDDHI VINAYAK SYNTEX PVT LTD. VERSUS VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & 2 [2017 (3) TMI 1534 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT], petitioner may always place the very authority into service before the concerned authority. The petitioner has directly approached this Court against the show cause notice raising all contentions in these petitions. When efficacious remedy in alternative is available, this Court had not enter into the merits of the matters. Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (3) TMI 1012 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Refund of Terminal Excise Duty (TED) - Rejection of refund contending that as supplies against ICB are ab initio exempted from payment of excise duty, the same are ineligible for refund - applicability of relevant FTP 2009-14. HELD THAT:- By virtue of the notification No. 4 dated 18th April, 2013, a condition was incorporated stipulating that categories of supplies which are exempt ab initio would not be eligible to receive refund of TED. In the present case, the supplies were made during the period from 15th December, 2009 to 10th February, 2011 and thus during the relevant period, there was no such condition in the FTP. It may also be noted that the aforenoted notification is substantive and not clarificatory and therefore cannot be applied retrospectively. Thus, even in this situation, in our view, the petitioner is entitled to refund ....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 929 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - availability of an alternate remedy - final assessment is yet to be completed - HELD THAT:- The Division Bench of this Court in the case of MERCEDES BENZ INDIA PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [2010 (3) TMI 300 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] has stressed upon the Tribunal the need to give deference to the decisions of its co-ordinate benches - Since the Tribunal has dismissed the appeal as premature and that prima facie we find that in identical circumstances the Tribunal has taken a different view, we are inclined to entertain this petition, more particularly in the law laid down by this Court in the case of Mercedes India Ltd. However, before concluding finally on the issue, we find that it will be appropriate to let the Tribunal examine the above cited decisions rendered by the co-ordinate benches and then take an info....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 928 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Validity of Rule 2(vi)(a) made vide Notification dated 1st March, 2019 - vires of Section 1(2) of the Environment (Protection) Act, 1986 - HELD THAT:- The writ-applicant has to pay the ground rent, detention charges, demurrage charges etc. In such circumstances, a request is made that the writ-applicant may be permitted to atleast shift the 05 containers from the Mundra Port to his Industrial Unit of course subject to the condition that the writ-applicant shall not utilize the goods in any manner till the final adjudication of this litigation. Let Notice be issued to the respondents, returnable on 30/01/2020.
- 2020 (3) TMI 927 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Smuggling - Gold - confiscation of vehicle - HELD THAT:- It can very well be seen that it was based on the affidavit of the Commissioner of Customs that the respondent herein had withdrawn the writ petition and had approached the Learned Magistrate. There is no merits in the submission of the Learned standing counsel appearing for the petitioner that the order passed by the Learned Magistrate is illegal. The respondent cannot be made to run from pillar to post to get his vehicle released. The petitioner cannot be permitted to take vacillating stands before this Court to harass the respondent. Petition dismissed.
- 2020 (3) TMI 861 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - opportunity of hearing to the petitioner not provided - It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner was never supplied with the copy of the order placing the petitioner company in the Denied Entities List (DEL) - HELD THAT:- SCN merely states that DRI has informed that the petitioner Firm is “suspected to be misusing the Advance Authorisation”. Details of the allegations against the petitioner have not been given in the Show Cause Notice. As far as the order placing the petitioner on DEL is concerned, the same is stated to have been passed on 26.06.2019, that is even prior to the issuance of the Show Cause Notice. In terms of Rule 9(2) of the Rules, the same was clearly premature and not permissible as on that date proceedings of cancellation of the license of the petitione....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 860 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Imposition of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of conveyance - Interpretation of statute - section 115(2) of The Customs Act, 1962 - seizure and confiscation of Diesel Oil - illegal import or not - HELD THAT:- The proviso to sub-section (2) of section 115, categorically provides that where any conveyance is used for the carriage of goods or passengers for hire the owner of any conveyance shall be given an option to pay in lieu of the confiscation of the conveyance “a fine not exceeding the market price of the goods” which are sought to be smuggled or the smuggled goods, as the case may be. Clearly, therefore, the redemption fine which can be imposed in lieu of the confiscation of the conveyance should not exceed the “market price of the goods which are sought to be smuggled or smuggled goods”. The adjudicati....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 859 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Provisional release of seized goods - Gold - Section 110 (A) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner had sent a representation claiming provisional release under Section 110 (A) of the Customs Act, 1962. Under Section 110 (A) of the Customs Act, 1962, the goods which were seized can be released provisionally provided a bond is executed by the person, from whom the goods were seized. It must however be kept in mind that penalty has to be decided during the adjudication process. During the adjudication process, the adjudicating authority has to take a further decision whether to provisionally release the seized goods or not - The learned counsel for the petitioner stated that the adjudication process under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and Section 110 (A) of the Customs Act and independent of the adjudication process an....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 858 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - appellant submitted that till the clarification is issued by the Kingdom of Thailand in terms of the said order, no effective reply could be given to the impugned show cause notice dated 14.11.2012 and therefore, no useful purpose will be served by relegating the Assessee before the concerned authority - HELD THAT:- No interference is called for in the order of the learned Single Judge, which in our opinion, adequately protects the interest of the Assessee / appellant before the concerned authority as well. It is needless to say that explanation has to be submitted by the Assessee in pursuance of the impugned notice dated 14.11.2012 and the Assessee is free to raise all the contentions before the concerned authority. Since the learned single Judge has already protected the interests of the Assessee / appellant ....... + More
- 2020 (3) TMI 775 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Import of vehicle bearing Chassis Number - specific discrepancy noticed was that the payment of interest, which is mandatory for maintaining the settlement application before the Commission, had not been effected - HELD THAT:- No order in terms of Section 127C(1) has been passed in this matter, rejecting the application at the threshold. However, as the application has been allowed to be proceeded with for final hearing, it is deemed to have been admitted in terms of the proviso to Section 127(1). The legal and logical result of this sequence of events is that the application has been found to be proper and maintainable, the SC presumably being satisfied prima facie with the explanations offered at that stage - No doubt, the question regarding payment of interest on merits will stand reserved for detailed decision at the time of final hea....... + More