Home Case Index All Cases Customs 2011 2011 2011 (1) Customs - 2011 (1) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Customs - Case Laws

Showing 81 to 100 of 110 Records

• 2011 (1) TMI 322 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - use of import goods - Classification - It is not in dispute that the said CPTs were dismantled and subject to certain processes and the resultant goods were cleared as envisaged under Rule 16 - Prima facie, in the facts of the case the processes undertaken on the goods received, under Rule 16 cannot be held to be amounting to manufacture and the resultant goods cannot be treated as manufactured goods and, therefore, parts and inputs imported duty free under Notification No. 25/99 cannot be used for such activity without payment of duty. - On merits, prima facie, the case of the department is strong - Appellant is directed to deposit and pre-deposit is waived

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 317 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Confiscation - Failed to file the BOE - this does not amount to contravention of the provisions of Section 111 and therefore agree that the goods are not liable for confiscation - Appeal is allowed

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 314 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Provisionally assessment - Since the commissioner (Appeals) has in the earlier case clearly accepted the very same contact dated 31.8.2007 with regard to valuation, the valuation has attained finality - the valuation determined by the Deputy Commissioner has to be set aside - This writ petition is allowed

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 309 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Direction to release the goods - The issues involved in this writ petition is covered by the order of this Court, wherein, this Court had directed the respondent therein to release the goods concerned subject to certain conditions :(i)The petitioner shall pay the entire amount of duty, as per the declared value, which may be based on the contract or price etc.(ii)the petitioner shall provide sufficient bank guarantee in respect of 50% of the difference in duty, in favour of the Department,(iii)the remaining 50% of the difference in duty, the petitioner shall furnish personal bond to the satisfaction of the respondent.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 308 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Seizure - Smuggled goods - Conviction u/s 135 - transported eight gold pieces weighing 378 gms and the petitioner was sentenced to 3 years imprisonment alongwith fine of Rs. 5000 - Learned courts below, however, found that before the custom authorities the petitioner had accepted that recovered articles were gold and that such statement of the petitioner was admissible in evidence - the burden of proving that they are not smuggled shall be; on the person from whose possession the goods were seized; if any person, other than the person from whose possession the goods were seized, claims to be the owner thereof, also on such other person; in any other case, on the person, if any, who claims to be the owner of the goods so seized - the petitioner has not been able to discharge the onus that the articles recovered are not gold and is liable to conviction - the imprisonment of 3 years appears to be too harsh and the same is reduced to 2 years

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 297 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Smuggling racket - Search and seizure - Illegally imported – Penalty on Revenue officers - Print-outs of telephone calls made by various noticees amongst each other was held to be reliable evidence by impugned order - The details contained in the print-outs did not disclose the conversations amongst the smuggling racket - Regularity and frequency of calls with customs officers by the smuggling racket proved the modus operandi of the racket. Frequent contacts by and with Air Customs Officers on regular basis, especially with the officers on duty brought them to charge of connivance and abetment who made the smuggling successful - here was no recording of conversation made by the appellant to different offending cell phones reason of such contacts remained questionable and not satisfactorily explained - Even the appellant’s pleading about the contact with the informers appears to be baseless.

  In the course of hearing no evidence were led to demonstrate that all the trader appellants were strangers to the proceeding - Rather, they established their intimacy with the smuggling racket and proved their deal in the smuggled goods - Statement recorded from them as well as smuggling racket unmistakably disclosed their identity and destination of the offending goods arrived at the IGI Airport and cleared making evasion of customs duty - Other than the arguments, no logical reasons could be shown to us to infer dissociation of the trader appellants from the charge - When the proof of transport of the offending goods established destination thereof and disposal of the offending goods by trader appellant there remained no doubt to bring these appellants to charge –Penalty on revenue officers confirmed - Thus all their appeals being devoid of merit are dismissed.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 183 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Recalling of the order - appeal was being adjourned either at the request of the applicant or otherwise in the interest of the justice when the applicant was not represented - Receiving back of the notice by the postal authority with the remarks left indicates that the appellants are not available at the address given to the registry - appellants have not intimated any change of address for service of notice of hearing - no reason justifiable to keep the appeal on record and the same is accordingly dismissed for non prosecution

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 181 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Condonation of delay in filing the appeal - delay due to filing of an appeal at wrong forum - Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) has rejected the appeal on time bar by refusing to condone the delay of 32 days in filing the appeal on the ground that he does not have powers to condone the delay beyond 30 days – assessee received a communication from the office of Commissioner indicating that they are not the right forum to file the appeal and same should be collected from their office and be filed in right office – assessee submits that the period during which the appeal was lying in the office of Commissioner, has to be excluded for the purpose of computing the delay in filing the present appeal - contention of the appellant to be correct and accordingly, order of Commissioner (Appeals) set aside and matter remanded for reconsideration

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 169 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Target Plus Scheme - FTP - Board s circulars stand quashed by Hon'ble High Court of Delhi in the case of M/s Indian Exporters Grievance Forum & Anr. Vs. UoI & Ors (2010 -TMI - 203124 - HIGH COURT OF DELHI) - in view of the decision of the HC, matter remanded back for fresh reconsideration of facts.

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 159 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Waiver of interest - appellants have cleared the impugned goods initially for exhibition in China and the movement of the goods was under bond without payment of duty - when the goods have been exported without payment of the central excise duty and subsequently the same goods have been re-imported and taken for home consumption, it is logical that the same should suffer central excise duty, as no goods can be manufactured and cleared for home consumption without payment of applicable central excise duty unless specifically exempted as provided under the law - no justification for claiming for waiver of interest and appeal rejected

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 134 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  100% EOU - shortage of imported material - it was admitted by the Director that the fabrics have been sold in the domestic market and had not been used for the manufacture of export goods - no evidence to show that said goods have been used in the manufacture of export goods and therefore he cannot contest the charge of illicit removal of the fabrics - submission that duty calculation on the imported fabrics should have been based on the value at the time of import and not on the basis of selling price, has not been considered by learned Commissioner (Appeals) - order set aside and allow the appeal by way of remand

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 113 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Waiver of pre deposit - This appeal is directed against the ld. Commissioner s order confiscating the goods in question under Sec.111(d) of the Customs Act (with option for redeeming the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 30 lakhs), and imposing a penalty of Rs. 20 lakhs under Sec. 112(a) of the Act - The Hon ble High Court held that it was not open to the DGFT to alter the import policy provision by way of circulars instead of Notifications required to be issued under Sec.5 of the Foreign Trade (D & R) Act, 1992 - According to the import policy, such sheets were freely importable during the period of dispute and hence prima facie, not liable to be confiscated - The appeal stands allowed by way of remand

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 104 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Re-Import - Benefit of the Notification denied on the ground that the goods are not the same which were exported as they were not capable of being identified as being the same goods which were initially imported and exported and then re-imported - at the time of examination the only endorsement on the Bill of Entry is that the packages were opened and verified the marks on the drums with respect to marked description in the documents and this was verified with reference to export documents - no reason for coming to the conclusion that it was not capable of identifying that the goods which were initially imported and exported and then re-imported cannot be the one which were exported – assessee entitled to the benefit of the notification – appeal allowed

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 103 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
  

  Unjust enrichment - once the price is fixed by Government, there cannot be a question of unjust enrichment - In the case of M/s Hindalco Industries (2008 -TMI - 31661 - HIGH COURT GUJARAT), held that during the period prior to 13.7.06, if the assessment was provisional, unjust enrichment would not be applicable - when the sale price of the final product is decided by Government from time to time, the question of unjust enrichment does not arise – Revenue’s appeal rejected

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 94 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
  

  Refund claim - authority had granted refund - Revenue went up in appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal of the Revenue on the ground that the grounds of appeal of the Revenue have been drafted subsequent to review order and the grounds of appeal did not exist at that time and this shows that the review order issued without any application of mind - ground on which the Commissioner (Appeals) has decided the case against the Revenue is erroneous – Order set aside - appeal allowed by way of remand

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 93 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - iron an steel were imported by the appellants at concessional rate of duty - condition attached to the said notification requires production of end-use certificate from the Assistant Commissioner within a period of six months - Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the benefit of Notification cannot be denied on the ground of non-submission of end-use certificates within a period of six months, when there is no denial of the fact that the assessees had never eventually produced the end-use certificate issued by the proper office – assesee’s grievance is that the issue was not the subject matter of show cause notice, while the Commissioner (Appeals) before confirming the duty on the ground has not given any opportunity to clarify the issue - order set aside and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 81 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit - The order of confiscation pertains to Hot Rolled Steel Sheets imported by the appellant in April 2009 - The department took the stand that the above item was restricted and hence not freely importable - The appellant argued that the item imported by them was H.R.Steel sheets and not coil and hence would not be hit by the amendment - The ld.counsel for the appellant has produced a copy of Hon ble Mumbai High Court s judgment dated 1.10.09 which was passed in Writ Petition No.16753 of 2009 (M/s. Sri Ganesh Ventures vs UOI & Ors), which struck down the above policy circular of the DGFT as beyond the scope of delegated legislation - Held that the appeal stands allowed by way of remand

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 74 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Confiscation - The case of the petitioner is that he was monitored right from the aero bridge and intercepted at the baggage belt and thus prevented from approaching the Red Channel Counter to declare the goods and to pay the duty - Department of Customs, to the contrary is that the petitioner had not declared the said goods - He has agreed the government order to pay the redemption fine on 10th January, 2006 of Rs. 53,55,688/- @ 55% of the gold value - What has prompted the petitioner to file the present petition is the fact that he has been ‘acquitted’ in the criminal prosecution - Criminal prosecution is different hence no merit is found on the present case and the same is dismissed

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 71 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  DEPB licence - more than one DEPB licence holders who were the exporters who have allegedly indulged in fraud to get ineligible DEPB scrips - SDR submitted that the DEPB scrips have been obtained by mis representation and fraud by the licence holders - appellant has not chosen to initiate any civil/criminal proceedings against the seller of DEPB scrips - appellant was not guilty of any offence as mentioned in the proviso, the duty demand could not have been made for the extended period under the proviso to Section 28 - appeal succeeds on the ground of limitation and allowed

  ---

• 2011 (1) TMI 63 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
  

  Penalty – Valuation - value declared by the appellant corresponds to the value contained in the overseas chartered engineer certificate - no valid reason exists to reject the value estimated by the overseas chartered engineer basing reliance on the value estimated by local chartered engineer which itself was based on local market enquiry - order of the Commissioner set aside in enhancing the assessable value

  ---

123456