Advanced Search Options
Customs - Tribunal - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 14 of 14 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 (5) TMI 643 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty - non-submission of installation certificate within 6 months and further extension of time not sought from the Customs - violation of conditions of the N/N. 97/2004 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, in the present case, the appellant has violated the conditions of the notification no.97/2004 dt. 17/09/2004. Further, the imported goods were not installed within 6 months and no application for extension of time was submitted to the Customs as per the condition of the notification. Further, the Commissioner (Appeals) after considering all the submissions of the appellant has come to the conclusion that the appellant has violated the condition of the Notification No.97/2004 and consequently has imposed redemption fine of ₹ 50,000/- and penalty of ₹ 5000/- on the appellant under Section 112(a) of t....... + More
- 2020 (5) TMI 642 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Condonation of delay of 135 days in filing appeal - case of appellant is that delay caused due to applicant being busy in compliance of some Department’s direction and also that the Counsel did not received the notice in time - HELD THAT:- The ground that applicant being busy in compliance of some Department’s direction, is not opined sufficient explanation for the delay as big as of 135 days - There have been findings against the present importer in the decision of M/S. JAISWAL IMPORT CARGO SERVICES LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [2019 (8) TMI 497 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] as was filed by the applicants, co-noticee. It becomes clear that before the said decision the applicant was not inclined to file the appeal and the present appeal is the outcome due to the said decision - thus the reason is not acceptable for not been th....... + More
- 2020 (5) TMI 588 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Amendment in shipping bills - rejection of request made by the Appellant for making amendment in the shipping bills on the ground that the Appellant had failed to provide any documentary evidence, as was required under section 149 of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner (Appeals) completely failed to distinguish the requirements of paragraph 2 of the notification and paragraph 3 of the notification. The documents which the Commissioner (Appeals) sought from the Appellant are in relation to the requirements of paragraph 3 of the notification and in fact even the information sought in the format is a format contemplated in paragraph 3 of the notification. Paragraph 2 of the notification required a declaration to be made in the shipping bills regarding the intention to claim rebate either under paragraph 2 or paragraph 3 of the not....... + More
- 2020 (5) TMI 566 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Confiscation of imported goods - allegation that goods at the time of import were not bearing MRP/RSP - HELD THAT:- There is no violation by the appellant as the goods have been imported through Nava Sheva which is the notified sea port and further ICD, Garhi Harsaru falls under the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Patparganj. The provision of Legal Metrology Act read with the rules thereunder do not prohibit stickering as regards MRP, prior to out of charge given to the customs - Admittedly, such stickering has been done in the facts of the present case. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
- 2020 (5) TMI 368 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
DFIA (duty free import authorisation) License - requirement of disclosure of technical characteristics, quality and specifications of the essential oil said to have been used in manufacture of Paan Masala/Gutka - contention of the exporter that the declaration requirement of the exception notification is applicable only if the exported goods are included in the list of items enumerated in paragraph 4.55.3 was not accepted by the Hon’ble High court - HELD THAT:- No doubt the show cause notice in the present case has been issued after a period of expiry of two years as mentioned in the said section. But the show cause notice itself has alleged the suppression of facts on part of the exporter. The same has even been confirmed by the original adjudicating authority as in Para-21 of the order dated 04.06.2015 it is appreciated that the n....... + More
- 2020 (5) TMI 347 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Restoration of mistake - recall of the order - HELD THAT:- In the order dated 04.12.2013 while disposing the stay application filed by the various appellants including the present appellant, this Tribunal directed pre-deposit 10% of the penalty imposed on each of them. Thereafter, time and again, the appellant filed modification applications repeating the same grounds of financial difficulty. Each of the said modification application had been rejected on merit by this Tribunal. Also, while rejecting the respective modification applications, extension of time of deposit was granted to the appellant for compliance of the stay order. Instead of complying with the directions, the appellant indulged on dilatery tactics to avoid the deposit of the directed amount by filing modification applications time and again repeating the same grounds. The....... + More
- 2020 (5) TMI 249 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Maintainability of appeal - present appeal was filed by the assessee himself whereas the proper remedy was to file revision petition before the appropriate authority - condonation of delay caused due to filing of this appeal before the wrong forum - HELD THAT:- The assertion of the Learned Advocate for the appellant is found to be true since the appeal has been filed wrongly before this forum whereas the proper remedy was to approach the Revisional Authority. Hence, the appeal is required to be rejected as not maintainable before this forum. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of MP. STEEL CORPORATION VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE [2015 (4) TMI 849 - SUPREME COURT] has categorically held that the principles of Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1963 would apply to the proceedings even before quasi-judicial authorities and a....... + More
- 2020 (5) TMI 227 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Confiscation of goods - imposition of redemption fine - redemption fine imposed on the ground that the appellant have not complied with the requirement of Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2016 in as much as the appellant is required to affix the BIS Mark on the imported goods at the time of shipment - HELD THAT:- This case there is no dispute between assessee and the revenue. Admittedly the goods were shipped in the month of January, 2017. At that point of time Stainless Steel Products (Quality Control) Order, 2016 had not come into force, same came into force on 07.02.2017 only. In terms of the Para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy,2015-2020 the date of import has to be reckoned, as per the date of shipment/dispatch from the supplying country. The date of shipment that is Bill of Lading which is in month of January, 2017....... + More
- 2020 (5) TMI 155 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Quantum of redemption fine and penalty - enhancement of value of imported goods - old and used worn clothing - HELD THAT:- On perusal of the impugned order, we note that the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) has ordered reduction of redemption fine and personal penalty on the basis of ratio laid down by the Three Member Bench of CESTAT, Delhi in the case of M/S. OMEX INTERNATIONAL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI [2015 (4) TMI 112 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)] - The Three Member Bench has taken the view that redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% of the value of the imported goods, would be appropriate in case of import violating Exim Policy Provisions - there are no reason to interfere with the findings of the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) on the basis of such decision. The impugned order is upheld and the appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected - Decided against Revenue.
- 2020 (5) TMI 154 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Valuation of imported goods - Aluminium scrap - rejection of declared value of the goods under import, without rejecting the transaction value/declared price - Section 14 of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- There are no cogent reasons have been given by the Court below for rejection of transaction value. The declared transactions value can only be rejected with cogent reasons by undertaking the exercise as to on what basis the paid price was not the sole consideration, or the transactions value. Since, no such exercise is done by the Court below to reject the price declared or the transaction value in the bills of entry, the orders of Court below are erroneous and fit to be set aside. The Adjudicating Authority was bound to accept the transaction value declared by the appellant - importer, and erred in rejecting the declared price without recording any finding for rejecting the same, as required under Section 14 of the Customs Act. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
- 2020 (5) TMI 103 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Imposition of penalty on Customs Broker (CB) - non-declaration/concealment of goods - Allegation is that Mr. Santosh and Mr. Janaki Raman filed Bill of Entry without verifying KYC / antecedents of the importer and thus abetted in the import of undeclared goods - HELD THAT:- When the Ministry of Commerce who has granted IE licence has exhibited the details of IEC holders in their website which can be verified, the appellant cannot be found fault when the same has been accepted to be true and correct - also, Mr. Santosh and Mr. Janaki Raman had given statements that previous consignment of the same importer also non-declared goods and therefore they ought to have been more cautious. The goods were cleared and apart from the statement there is no evidence to doubt the previous consignments. The statements were retracted. They were not subjec....... + More
- 2020 (5) TMI 68 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Redemption of goods for the purpose of re-export only - Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- Tribunal in the case of NATHI MAL RUGAN MAL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NHAVA SHEVA, RAIGAD [2018 (11) TMI 99 - CESTAT MUMBAI] after referring to Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 as well as various decisions have observed that no such condition that the goods can be redeemed only for re-export can be imposed. Further, in the case of HBL POWER SYSTEMS LTD. VERSUS CC, VISAKHAPATNAM [2018 (7) TMI 793 - CESTAT HYDERABAD], similar view was taken. The order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the goods can be redeemed only for re-export is unjustified - The impugned order is modified to the extent of setting aside the direction by the commissioner (Appeals) that the goods can be redeemed only for re-export. As already directe....... + More
- 2020 (5) TMI 10 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Export of Carpets - generation of wrong documents, due to defects in software - mis-description of value as well as quantity of goods - confiscation - redemption fine - Levy of Penalty on CHA u/s 114 (iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The appellant on being pointed out by the CHA immediately placed the correct document before Customs Authority on the same very date. In such set of circumstances, no mala fide can be attributed to the assessee so as to confiscate the export consignment or to impose penalty upon them - also, the second set filed by the appellants correctly covered all the aspects of the export consignment including the quantity, quality description and value etc. - confiscation set aside. Valuation of goods - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner has gone by the market inquiries which fact by itself cannot be held to be suf....... + More
- 2020 (5) TMI 9 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Smuggling - Silver Granules - foreign origin goods - Department was of the view that the silver being foreign origin and that the appellant not been able to establish the duty paid on the said silver or legal import, is smuggled in nature - Confiscation - penalties - Circular of the Board dated 11.06.1990 - HELD THAT:- From the circular, it is seen that the Govt. has made clear that the provisions of section 123 of Customs Act, 1962 should not be invoked, when persons are found possession of silver bullion less than 100 kgs. Further that when silver bullion is in the form of bars of 30 kgs. each and also silver bullion which bear foreign markings even though less than 100 kgs. can be subject to seizure for which proceedings can be initiated. In the present case, the silver is not in the nature of bars or coins. It is in the form silver gr....... + More