Advanced Search Options
Customs - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 48 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.
- 2021 (3) TMI 1138 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Levy of penalty u/s 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 - retraction of statements of the co-accused particularly when at the time of remand the Hon'ble Magistrate had specifically noted that the statements were recorded under threat and coercion - retraction of statements of the co-accused without independent corroboration - scope of SCN upon certain call records which were not relied upon in the show cause notice issued to the appellant under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 - reliance upon call records given by the mobile service provider without the mandatory certificate that is required to be issued under Section 138C of the Customs Act, 1962. HELD THAT:- If an order passed by an appellate Tribunal is a perfunctory order, if the Tribunal fails to consider the evidence being the final fact finding authority, if it has not discussed or....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 1090 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - Release of imported goods of the petitioner - service of notice - HELD THAT:- It is quite evident that mandate of section 124 is that no order confiscating any goods or imposing any penalty on any person shall be made unless the owner of the goods or such person is given a notice in writing informing him of the grounds on which it is proposed to confiscate the goods or to impose the penalty and further the owner of the goods or such person must be given an opportunity of making a representation in writing within such reasonable time as may be stated in the notice against the grounds of confiscation or imposition of penalty and finally the owner of the goods or such person is given a reasonable opportunity of being heard in the matter. Thus three conditions are required to be fulfilled before an....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 1079 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Production of “installation” certificate of the goods imported free of duty under the “Project Import Regulations, 1986” - directory or mandatory direction - production of “sale invoices” for having sold the computerized PCB in-circuit Tester for test bench for Ticket Office Machines - discharge of the obligation to produce the proof of installation or not - failure to clear the “validator” imported vide Bill of Entry No.5668 dated 24.10.2009 - charging of ware house interest for the uncleared goods - levy/charge of interest under Section 61 of the Customs Act, 1962 (delayed clearance of goods from warehouse) - HELD THAT:- Bangalore Tribunal in the case of CREATIVE INDUSTRIES P. LTD. VERSUS CC. & C. EX. (A-II), HYDERABAD [2008 (6) TMI 23 - CESTAT BANGALORE], wherein it was held that non-....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 1077 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Reduction in quantum of redemption fine and penalty - foreign currencies - currencies were attempted to be exported in violation of the Foreign Exchange Management (Import and Export of Currencies) Regulation, 2000, which tantamount to prohibition under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962 - authority to give an option for redeeming the goods on payment of fine, which is a discretion provided under the Act. HELD THAT:- We would have taken note of the said decision rendered by us in Commissioner of Customs (Air), Chennai-1 Vs. M/s.Premium Tours and Travels (Chennai) Pvt. Ltd. [2021 (2) TMI 659 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] and its applicability to the facts of the case provided provided that there was no earlier direction issued by the Tribunal dated 30.8.2007 where there was a positive direction issued to the Adjudicating Authority to grant redempt....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 1068 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Valuation - related party transaction - respondent has furnished the Impugned Investigation Report concluding that the petitioner’s relationship with its group companies has influenced the declared prices warranting intervention and opining that the declared prices are to be rejected under Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 - whether the impugned Investigation Report is issued in violation of the principles of natural justice, and if it is issued in violation of the principles of natural justice, what would be the appropriate order? - HELD THAT:- When the procedure laid down in the Circular dated 09.02.2016 in No.5/2016 is examined as against these factors, there cannot be any doubt that a Deputy Commissioner, or an Assistant Commissioner (SVB), in furnishing an Investigative Report discharges a....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 1034 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction - proper officer to issue SCN - Additional Director General, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence - HELD THAT:- The issue is no longer res integra and that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [2021 (3) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT] had held that the expression “the proper officer” occurring in Section 28 of the Customs Act will only refer to the assessing officer who passes the original order making assessment. In the case also, the show cause notice was issued by the Additional Director General of DRI. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held that he cannot be termed as “the proper officer”. Since the entire proceedings were initiated by an authority who lacked the jurisdiction, applying the aforesaid decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court the order impugned in these writ petitions is quashed. Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
- 2021 (3) TMI 1015 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Violation of principles of natural justice - petitioner has been put under the "Denied Entity List" (DEL) - despite sending a detailed objection to the show cause notice issued by the respondents, the same has not been considered and without affording a fair hearing, the impugned order has been passed - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand, the petitioner has been put under the "Denied Entity List" (DEL) by the respondents by exercising the power under Rule 7 of Foreign Trade (Regulation) Rules, 1993. However, as seen from the impugned order, no reasons have been given for putting the petitioner under the "Denied Entity List" (DEL). The petitioner has admittedly given a reply to the show cause notice, dated 20.07.2020 issued by the respondents on 05.02.2020. The same has been admitted by the respondents. In the re....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 973 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Refund of the Special Additional Duty of customs - rejection on the ground of time limitation - seizure of documents by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence for which delay occurred - N/N.102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 as amended by Notification No.93/2008-Cus dated 01.08.2008 - HELD THAT:- The petitioners plead “Lex non-cogit ad impossibilia” in filing of refund claims in time. According to the petitioners, they had to liaison with the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence to get copies of the Bills of Entries and since the Bills of Entries were not given to the petitioners in time, there was a delay in filing the refund claims. It is therefore submitted that seizure of documents by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence cannot be against the petitioners. Denial of benefit of Notification No.102/2007-Cus dated 14.09.2007 as ....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 967 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - petition has been dismissed on the ground that there is absolutely no trigger for the writ petitioner to approach this Court and there is no cause of action for filing the writ petition - recovery of drawback amount - HELD THAT:- The reply along with enclosures said to have been given, have been received in the office of the respondent on 23.08.2010, as could be seen from the date seal. The appellant did nothing thereafter and in the year 2020, filed the writ petition. As observed by us earlier, the learned Writ Court was fully satisfied in one way or the other that there was no cause of action to file a Writ of Certiorari to quash the show cause notice especially when the appellant submitted to jurisdiction of the respondent and said to have fulfilled what was called for from them in the show cause notice. S....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 964 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Refund of Special Additional Duty (SAD) - rejection on the ground that the refund claim was filed beyond the time limit of one year from the date of payment of duty and also on the ground that the sales invoice submitted by the appellant along with refund claim did not indicate charging of sales tax - opportunity of hearing not provided - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The issue relating to limitation is a question of law to be considered and it is found that the assessee did not have an opportunity to place their submissions before the respondent before ever the order impugned in the said petition was passed. Not providing an opportunity of personal hearing would result in violation of the principles of natural justice, which would be one of the grounds to entertain a writ petition. Therefore, the matter remitte....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 955 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Seeking refund of IGST - rejection of refund, filed before Assistant Commissioner of Central Tax, observing that the claim for refund is to be processed by the Customs Department - HELD THAT:- Afresh representation has been made to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, ICD Whitefield on 30.09.2019 and it is stated that the said representation at Annexure-A remains to be considered till date. The respondent No.4 - Deputy Commissioner of Customs, ICD Whitefield, is to consider the representation at Annexure-A and pass necessary orders within a period not later than eight weeks from the date of release of this order - petition disposed off.
- 2021 (3) TMI 910 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Constitutional validity of notification issued / authenticated by the DGFT - Prescribing Minimum Import Price (for short the "MIP") for Cashew Kernels Broken and Cashew Kernel whole - whether the notification no. 53 dated 2.12.2013 can be held ultra vires to the provisions of the Customs Act and the Foreign Trade Act as well as to the Article 14 of the Constitution of India or not? HELD THAT:- On perusal of the above notification, it is clear that the same is issued under section 5 of the Foreign Trade Act read with paragraph no. 2.1 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2009-2014, as amended from time to time by prescribing the minimum CIF value of cashew kernels under Chapter 8 of ITC (HS) 2012, Schedule 1 (Import Policy) per kilogram being ₹ 288/- for cashew kernel (broken) for HS Code 0801 32 10 and ₹ 400/- for cashew ker....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 897 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Duty Drawback - duty drawback qua the Central Excise has not been availed of by the petitioners - HELD THAT:- Thus, what requires to be examined, now, by respondent no.2, is only one aspect, which is, whether petitioners have availed duty drawback qua Service Tax. At the request of Mr. Singh, list the matter on 26.03.2021 - In the meanwhile, Mr. Singh will file an affidavit, as directed, via the order dated 05.03.2021.
- 2021 (3) TMI 893 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Permission to travel abroad - On behalf of the DRI, it is submitted that there is an apprehension that the applicant would not return to India - HELD THAT:- It becomes apparent that the requested party in terms of the treaty of extradition between the Republic of India and Republic of Korea dated 05.10.2004 would be bound to extradite the person who has allegedly committed the offences qua taxation, custom duty, foreign exchange, control or other revenue matters except for in accordance with the provision of Articles 3 & 4 of the said treaty. It becomes apparent thus in terms of the Extradition Treaty even if a Korean citizen is permitted to travel abroad, he can be extradited back to this country with it also having been observed vide order dated 20.11.2020 that the in the circumstances, the apprehension that had been expressed on be....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 742 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Seeking release of seized consignment - Section 110 (2) read with the proviso thereto - SCN not issued within six month and further extension of six month sought - HELD THAT:- In interpretating the same, one has to bear in mind the position that consignments of an assessee are seized by the Department on the basis of apprehensions. The scope and veracity of such apprehensions would have to be crystallized by way of a show cause notice, putting the assessee to notice of all materials available with the department in support of its apprehensions and allegations, for which purpose the Legislature has granted a period of six months. An extension of the period as aforesaid is provided for, conditional upon reasons being recorded and such reasons and being intimated to the assessee, prior to the expiry of the original period of six months. In t....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 740 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Seeking for suspension or revocation of the approval - customs cargo service provider - Regulation 11 of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 - import of restricted item - HELD THAT:- By an order dated 09.10.2020, this Court merely directed the 1st respondent to file report on the action taken based on the representation dated 11.08.2015 of the petitioner against the 2nd respondent. On the other hand, the so called compliance report dated 10.11.2020 of the 1st respondent seems to indicate that action has been taken pursuant to a direction of this Court dated 09.10.2020. It is not clear on what basis the 1st respondent has issued the said Show Cause Notice to the 2nd respondent - Petition closed.
- 2021 (3) TMI 733 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Seeking release the electronic consumer goods upon payment of an appropriate duty, redemption fine and penalty - Absolute Confiscation - i-phones/i pads - HELD THAT:- The request for release justified particularly seeing as the items for which the release is sought are electronic goods that are prone to speedy obsolescence - In view of the aforesaid, there is a direction to R2 to release the goods within one week from the date of petitioner remitting duty, fine and penalty. Petition allowed.
- 2021 (3) TMI 696 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Seeking direction upon the appellants herein to forthwith release of 136 units of old and used multifunction print, copying and scanning machines - classification of printers - covered under CTH and ITC [HS] Code No.8443 32 10 to 8443 32 50 and 8471 60 24 or not - HELD THAT:- The non-compliance of the CRO may lead to serious consequences. However, we do not wish to express anything in this regard because the learned Single Bench was not inclined to touch upon the merits of the matter but proceeded to grant release based on various orders passed by the High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court - the orders of provisional release cannot be pressed into service by the respondent/writ petitioner, more particularly, after the issuance of the notification dated 01.04.2020 and this is of utmost relevance because the bills of entry in almost all ....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 690 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Refund claim - Principles of unjust enrichment - Certificate of Chartered Accountant - sufficient and conclusive proof or not, that the incidence of duty has not been passed on - provisional assessment for the period prior to 14.07.2006 - scope of unjust enrichment on Public Sector Undertakings - applicability of Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 are not applicable to the Public Sector Undertakings. HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the claim for refund which was made by the assessee arises out of the order of provisional assessment for the period prior to 14.07.2006. The issue whether the public sector undertakings are outside the purview of unjust enrichment is concerned, the same is no more res integra and has already been adjudicated in Mafatlal Industries Limited Vs. Union of India, [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT], wherein the Supreme Court h....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 637 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Fragrant violation of the judicial comity of Courts - Non application of mind while allowing bail - Permission to travel abroad to her home for one year from 06.01.2021 to 05.01.2022 - Sumuggling of Gold - HELD THAT:- It is essential to observe that even if the circumstances after the order dated 31.08.2020 had in any manner been changed, it was always open to the applicant to file the application before the Trial Court seeking permission to travel abroad to seek redressal in accordance with law by either seeking a review of the order dated 31.08.2020 of this Court or filing a fresh petition in relation thereto or assailing the order dated 31.08.2020 of this Court before the Hon’ble Supreme Court but in any event there could not have been any concealment of the facts that vide order dated 31.08.2020 in CRL.M.C.1529/2020, the prayer ....... + More