Advanced Search Options
Customs - Tribunal - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 82 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 1434 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Classification of imported goods - TCL brand Digital Video Camera Model DV710 - to be classified under CTH 8525 80 20 as digital camera, or under CTH 8525 80 30 as video camera recorders - benefit of Sl. No. 13 of exemption Notification No. 25/2005-Cus - HELD THAT:- The impugned goods have capacity to record video images also in addition to still images. Furthermore, on perusal of the literature submitted by the appellants, it is clear that the accessories of cameras include PC connection set indicating that they store images and/or video are stored digitally (without a film) in the camera and can be viewed digitally on other devices like computer etc. This conforms to the explanatory notes. Moreover, the notification does not define the cameras but says that the exemption is applicable to ‘Digital Still Image Video Cameras’ -....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1432 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Benefit of exemption Notification 12/2012-Cus., dated 17-3-2012, Sl. No. 399(A) - Import of Power Tiller - respondent had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., dated 17-3-2012 under Sl. No. 399(A) which is available to Rotary Tiller/Weeder - Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - HELD THAT:- The Power Tiller, which in the form of pedestrian controlled tractor, and the Rotary Tiller, which are equipment to till the soil. Tractors including pedestrian controlled tractors or power tiller are classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading 8701. Rotary tillers are classifiable under Chapter Heading 84 as agriculture equipment. The Rotary tiller is specifically covered under Customs Tariff Heading 8432. As there was a confusion among the some field formations, this matter was discussed at length in C.B.E. & C.’s Circula....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1431 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Extension of anti-dumping duty for a period of one year pending the sunset review - gap of about 80 days between the expiry of the anti-dumping duty on 4 May, 2014 and the issue of a fresh notification on 24 July, 2014 by the Central Government imposing anti-dumping duty for a period of five years - continuation of anti-dumping duty for a period of five years pursuant to the sunset review determination - submission of Learned Counsel for the domestic industry is that such a limitation provided for continuation of anti-dumping duty would not be applicable in a case where the Designated Authority is asked to make a fresh determination on remand by the Appellate Tribunal - HELD THAT:- The requirement that the Designated Authority and the Central Government should issue a notification for continuation of the anti-dumping duty during the exist....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1430 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Violation of principles of natural justice - it is contended that Revenue was not given an opportunity of hearing by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) before passing the order - Confiscation of Diamonds and re-export of same - HELD THAT:- There are no merit in the apprehension of the Revenue that on payment of fine, the appellant would redeem the confiscated diamonds and re-export the same. We find that the Learned Commissioner (Appeals) after analyzing the evidence concluded that there has been misdeclaration of re-imported diamonds, denied the benefit of exemption to the same and upheld its confiscation and penalty. The re-imported diamonds are not absolutely confiscated. After payment of the fine and penalty amount, the option lies with the appellant either to re-export the goods or clear the same for home consumption on compliance with l....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1412 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Release of the seized betel nuts - appellant seeks to receive the sale proceed of impugned goods along with interest up to date in accordance with provisions of Section 129E of Customs Act, 1962 - matter is pending for concurrence of acceptance by Chief Commissioner, Patna - HELD THAT:- Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), Lucknow is directed to handover the sale proceed of impugned goods to the appellant by 7th March, 2020 along with interest applicable as per the provision of law. In case the amount is not received by 07 March, 2020 by the appellant, appellant is free to bring the fact to the notice of this Tribunal by moving a proper application. Application allowed.
- 2020 (2) TMI 1358 - CESTAT CHENNAI
EPCG Scheme - concessional rate of duty - vehicle has not been registered as tourist vehicle - recovery of duty forgone along with interest and penalty - HELD THAT:- It is brought out from the facts that the appellant has obtained registration under tourist category after the proceedings have been initiated - D.G.F.T. vide Circular dated 7-5-2008 has clarified that an importer/assessee could get the vehicles registered as tourist vehicle on or before 31-8-2008 and also if the EODC has not been issued within 30-6-2008. In the present case, the appellants have converted the registration to tourist vehicle much before issuance of EODC. The second allegation is that the appellants have not earned foreign exchange exclusively by the use of the imported vehicle - HELD THAT:- In the case of Commissioner of Customs v. Hotel Excelsior Ltd. - 2016 ....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1263 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Condonation of delay of 764 days in filing the appeal - imposition of penalty for violation of Regulation 11(a) and (n) of CBLR, 2013 - HELD THAT:- It is settled position of law that merely because a decision which is in favour come to the notice, it cannot be a ground to seek condonation of delay. The appellant has failed to promptly avail the appeal remedy. Though law of limitation is not meant to destroy the right of parties, it cannot favour those who are sleeping. In the present case, the appellant has deliberately opted not to file appeal initially. Thereafter, this appeal is filed only on the advice given that the penalty can be set aside - there is no evidence to show that the livelihood of appellant is affected or his intention to expand business is interrupted. The appellant has not been able to put forward sufficient cause to condone the delay. Further, the delay is more than two years - the application for condonation of delay is without merits - Appeal dismissed.
- 2020 (2) TMI 1262 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Duty Free Import Authorisation (DFIA) scheme - seeking clearance of Cocoa Powder as against Maida, Atta and Flour - export of Biscuits - whether entries in SION or Exim Policy are to be understood in common man’s understanding/trade parlance or on the basis of Technical literature? - right to reopen the issue once the same was settled by the Apex Court - applicability of principles of ‘ejusdem generis’ or ‘Noscitur a socciis’ - extended period of limitation. HELD THAT:- If Flour is placed along with Maida/Atta it cannot be taken to include ‘Cocoa Powder’ for the reason that ‘Cocoa Powder’ is a technically a Flour of beans. The issue is not so complicated and isolated that one requires to refer to Technical Literature to understand the terms. Technical Literature, being in its place, is....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1261 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Imposition of penalty u/s 114(i) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - export of prohibited items - case of appellant is that appellant was virtually ignorant of the said activities of the Marketing Manager and the appellant had not given any instruction to the marketing staff to export the prohibited items - HELD THAT:- In this case prohibited items are being exported but the same was intercepted. The only defense of the appellant was that export was done by the Marketing Manager without his knowledge and consent and he had not given any instruction to his Marketing staff to export the prohibited items. This defense does not inspire confidence. It is not convincing that the Marketing Manager has exported the prohibited goods without the knowledge of the appellant under whom the Marketing Manager is working. The penalty imposed is also not very exorbitant - Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
- 2020 (2) TMI 1260 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Levy of penalty and redemption fine - Acceptance of enhanced value then declared value of imported goods - crystal melamine - enhancement of value - confiscation - redemption fine - penalties - HELD THAT:- No evidence has been placed on record by the appellants herein that the value adopted does not represent that which the supplier offered goods for sale to India including to the original importer. The sole counter of Learned Counsel is that the negotiated price at which the goods were offered to the appellant is the sole consideration. The decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in M/S CHAUDHARY SHIP BREAKERS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD [2010 (10) TMI 18 - SUPREME COURT] was rendered in the context of the agreement between the shipper and the importer being conditional upon the damage to the vessel before landing and, ....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1212 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Refund of Additional Duty of Customs paid - respondent had claimed refund of this Additional Duty in view of the notification dated 14 September, 2007 by notification - time limitation for filing refund claim - requirement of filing claim before the expiry of one year from the date of payment of Additional Duty - HELD THAT:- The exemption granted under notification dated 14 September, 2007 requires fulfillment of certain conditions. The importer has to pay on the sale of the goods appropriate sales tax or value added tax and has to provide copies of documents with the refund claim evidencing payment of said Additional Duty, invoices of sale of the imported goods in respect of which refund of the said Additional Duty is claimed and documents evidencing payment of appropriate sales tax by the importer on the sale of such imported goods. The....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1211 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Import of prohibited/banned goods or not - Beauty & Make-up preparations - It appeared to Revenue that ICD, Dadri was not the port authorized for import of the said goods - absolute confiscation - penalty - HELD THAT:- Revenue has no where established that the said goods were banned for import into India. It is not examined whether the subject goods were authorized to be cleared at ICD Dadri because the appellant has opted to transship the goods at their cost to ICD Tughlakabad or ICD Patparganj. It is noted that, Customs Act has provided for trans-shipment of imported goods to the ports where import of such goods were allowed. Thus, the goods imported by appellants were not banned goods and therefore, the confiscation is set aside. Once the confiscation is set aside, question of redemption fine and penalty does not arise. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
- 2020 (2) TMI 1210 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Smuggling - betel Nuts - Confiscation on the ground that there is nothing on record to show that the same were not purchased from the local market and were of foreign origin - non-notified items or not - Section 123 of the Customs Act - Onus to prove smuggled nature of goods - validity of report given by Arecanut Research & Development Foundation, Mangalore, where it was held that the goods were of Burma origin cannot be relied upon inasmuch as under an RTI quarry, the Director of the said Arecanut Research & Development Foundation, Mangalore has informed that it is not possible to determine the place of origin of betel nuts through a test in the lab. HELD THAT:- Reliance can be placed in the cases of Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Lucknow V/s M/s Bramhaputra Cargo Carriers Private Ltd. [2019 (6) TMI 1442 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD], Co....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1135 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Jurisdiction - seizure of goods - extension of time u/s 110(2) for issuing Show Cause Notice (SCN) - no notice for personal hearing has been issued before extension of time u/s 11(2) - Principle of natural justice - import of Crystallized Glass Panel B Grade - mis-declaration / undervaluation of goods. HELD THAT:- Seen in the context of these facts, it is apparent that a textual reading of Section 110(2) would lead one to conclude that no separate notice is necessary, before extending the period of limitation by a further six months (for issuance of show cause notice); the authority has to record reasons in writing, which of course, should be based on materials and inform the concerned party about the extension before the expiry of the first period of six months. The decision of Ahmedabad Bench in the case of M/S GASTRADE INTERNATIONAL VE....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1134 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Valuation of imported goods - rejection of declared value - purchase of urea by the Appellant from the Government of India on High Sea Sale - inclusion of miscellaneous charges of ₹ 17/- per MT paid by the Government of India to STE, in assessable value - inclusion of notional 2% High Sea Sale Commission in assessable value - invocation of extended period of limitation - confiscation - penalty. Whether for the purchase of urea by the Appellant from the Government of India on High Sea Sale, miscellaneous charges of ₹ 17/- per MT paid by the Government of India to STE is required to be included in the assessable value and consequently duty payable on it? - HELD THAT:- The STE buys urea on behalf of the Government of India. The STE in fact represents the Government of India abroad and the foreign sellers know that the urea will b....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1133 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Classification of imported goods - ‘Segway’ product in CKD condition - whether classified under Customs Tariff Heading 87149990/87144011 etc? - benefit of N/N. 21/2002- Cus. dated 01/02/2002 (Sl. No. 345) and N/N. 12/2012-Cus. dated 17/03/2012 (Sl. No. 443 and 444). HELD THAT:- It categorically emerges from the entire discussions, which have also been not rebutted by the appellant, that under the various bills of entries the appellant have imported all parts including screw, nuts and user manual etc. for assembling Segway in India. The parts and assemblies imported were not subjected to any modification or addition of the local parts or hardware. The imported assemblies, such as, transmission assembly, power base assembly, wheel assembly with tyre, info key assembly and batteries were just put together by following the instruc....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1132 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Confiscation of import - personal effects/household articles - cosmetic items - Baggage Rules - allegation that the said import was in violation of Rule 133 and Rule 43A of the Drugs and Cosmetic Rules, 1945 - further allegation that as per the Board’s Circular No. 8/2010-Cus., dated 26-3-2010, Mangalore Port is not listed for import of the impugned goods into India by sea - HELD THAT:- The appellant is an Indian Passport holder and she shifted her household articles into India from Dubai and filed unaccompanied baggage under Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962. When the goods reached at Mangalore Port, it was examined and it was found that out of 139 packages, 54 packages are personal effect/household articles and remaining 85 packages were cosmetic items which are not permitted to be brought to India through Mangalore Port. Furthe....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1086 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Demand of Additional duty of Customs (High Speed Diesel Oil) - section 116 of the Finance Act, 1999 with effect from 1.3.1999 - HELD THAT:- The issue is squarely covered by the decision of tribunal in case of SJLT. TEXTILES (P) LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, COCHIN [2014 (1) TMI 1523 - CESTAT BANGALORE] wherein it has been held that notification no. 43/2002 does not grant exemption from levy under section 116 of the Finance Act, 1999. Appeal dismissed.
- 2020 (2) TMI 1085 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Refund of SAD - refund rejected on the ground that it was difficult for correlating the imported goods with that of the sold goods; that the respondent being a trader, there was possibility of one grade of the imported material moving faster than the other grade; that it was not possible from the description mentioned in the sales invoice to find out which grade of the imported material was exhausted or left unsold; etc. - principles of natural justice. HELD THAT:- Strangely, the First Appellate Authority having observed that a personal hearing was offered on 14.03.2013 before his predecessor, still proceeded to decide the case on merit, based on the available records, without providing an opportunity to the assessee on account of change, in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Adjudicating Authority has given a categorical....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1084 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Condonation of delay of 587 days in filing the appeal - requirement to file appeal within 60 days from the date of communication of the order, and 30 days thereafter explaining the reasons for the delay in filing the appeal - Section 128 of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- Undisputedly the appeal was filed before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) with the delay of 587 days from the date of communication of the order. There are force in the contention of the learned A.R. for the Revenue that the Commissioner (Appeals) is vested with the power to condone the delay upto a maximum period of 30 days in addition to the statutory limit of 60 days for filing an appeal. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in rejecting the appeal as not maintainable. There are no merits in the appeal - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.