|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 158 Records
-
2017 (8) TMI 582 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Power of review - relevancy of the exoneration of disciplinary proceedings for quashing of sanction - Held that: - It is legally settled that the power of review is possible only when there is an express provision enabling the Authority to review the earlier stand. It is equally settled that in respect of the grant of sanction to prosecute, when once on certain materials the Sanctioning Authority decides not to grant sanction, certainly, on the same materials, the Sanctioning Authority cannot change its opinion. By a catena of decisions, it has been held that the authority entitled to grant sanction must apply its mind to the facts of the case, evidence collected and other incidental facts before according sanction. A grant of sanction is not an idle formality but a solemn and sacrosanct act, which removes the umbrella of protection of Government servants against frivolous prosecutions and the aforesaid requirements must, therefore, be strictly complied with before any prosecution could be launched against public servants. The mind of the Sanctioning Authority should not be under pressure from any quarter nor should any external force be acting upon it to take a decision one way or the other. Since the discretion to grant or not to grant sanction vests absolutely in the sanctioning authority, its discretion should be shown to have not been affected by any extraneous consideration.
While law is thus settled, on the facts of the present case, the impugned sanction that has been given by the authority on the same material, which was available before the authority on the earlier occasion, when the refusal was made, cannot stand. The Sanctioning Authority having taken a lenient view earlier of declining to grant sanction has changed its opinion without any fresh materials and granted sanction, which cannot be allowed to stand. It is not permissible for the Sanctioning Authority to review or reconsider the matter on the same materials again.
Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2017 (8) TMI 581 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Import of, and trading in unbranded gold jewellery - smuggling - benefit of N/N. 12/2012 (CE) dated 17.03.2012 - Held that: - Sub-section (1) of section 130 uses the expression determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty or to the value of goods for the purposes of assessment . In the present case, the issue for consideration is, simply put, whether the assessee is to be called upon to pay 6% or 1% duty. The satisfaction of conditions for eligibility to claim the concessional rate is a mere factor relevant to determine the actual liability.
The expression includes the determination of a question relating to the rate of duty; to the valuation of goods for purposes of assessment; to the classification of goods under the Tariff and whether or not they are covered by an exemption notification; and whether the value of goods for purposes of assessment should be enhanced or reduced having regard to certain matters that the said Act provides for.
The issue that was formulated as the lis between the parties was the applicable rate of duty to the transaction at issue - Appeal dismissed being not maintainable.
-
2017 (8) TMI 579 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Benefit of N/N. dated 13th August, 2008 - whether the CESTAT is right in law in allowing the benefit claimed by the Respondent? - Held that: - the CESTAT has considered the merits of the matter after the verification of the documents and arrived the correct conclusion and further directing to allow the clearances of the goods imported is well within the power and based upon the record. There is no perversity and/or illegality in the order. The CESTAT has power to consider all the documents and record to give final finding on facts - decided against the Revenue.
-
2017 (8) TMI 510 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - Remittance of duty - section 23 of Customs Act, 1962 - Held that: - The dispute regarding short delivery of scrap was found to be involved any disputed question of facts which, in an opinion of the Court, cannot be gone into in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution - appeal dismissed being not maintainable.
-
2017 (8) TMI 504 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Import of restricted item - Boric acid used for non-insecticidal purposes - restrictions brought about on import of Boric acid by Agriculture Ministry via notification dated 7.4.2006 amending the import policy by amending the Schedule - case of petitioner is that it is not within the power of the Government of India to impose such restriction - whether the Ministry of Agriculture has power to bring such restrictions on import of Boric Acid for non-insecticidal purposes? - Held that: - Section 27 gives powers to the Central Government or the State Government to impose immediate ban on sale, distribution or use of the insecticide or batch of it, where in the opinion of the Government use thereof is likely to involve such human risk or risk to animals as to render it expedient or necessary to impose such immediate ban pending such investigation. Offences have been prescribed under section 29 of the Act. Special Courts could be set up for speedy disposal of such cases - the legislation framed section 38 providing for exemptions. Under subsection( 1) nothing in the Act would apply to the use of any insecticide by any person for his own household purposes or for kitchen garden or in respect of any land under his cultivation. Under clause(b) nothing in the Act would apply to any substance specified or included in the Schedule or any preparation containing any one or more of them, if such substance or preparation is intended for purposes other than preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any insects, rodents, fungi, weeds and other forms of plant or animal life not useful to human beings. Under subsection( 2) of section 38, the Central Government is authorised to issue notification exempting all or any of the provisions of this Act in case of educational, scientific or research organization engaged in carrying out experiments with insecticides. Subsection( 1) of section 38 which is a general exemption is divided in two parts. Under clause(a), insecticides for household and kitchen purposes etc. are kept out of the purview of the Act. Under clause(b), insecticides intended for the purposes other than agricultural and incidental purposes are exempted such as preventing, destroying, repelling or mitigating any insects, rodents, fungi, weeds and other forms of plant or animal life not useful to human beings. Clause(b) of subsection( 1) exempts the use of insecticides for non insecticidal purposes from the purview of the Act. Subsection (2) of section 38 gives powers to the Central Government to grant exemption for use of insecticides for educational, scientific or research purposes.
The Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee under the Ministry of Agriculture is only assigned the task of processing applications by the prospective importers for granting the import permit. There is nothing either unreasonable in this Act or impermissible in the statute for the Government of India so to do. Under the Act of 1992, the Government of India has ample powers to regulate the import policy. While doing so, it is either open for the Government of India to prohibit or restrict import of a certain item or subject it to regulatory measures. In the present case, Government of India was of the opinion that looking to the toxic nature of the substance, it was necessary to regulate its import. It may be that such regulation is provided for import of the substance for non insecticidal purposes. However, the philosophy behind such regulatory measure cannot be faulted - the Insecticides Act, 1968 makes detailed provisions for regulation and control of any insecticides including boric acid for the purposes of insecticidal uses. Its manufacture, trade, storage etc, can be subject to control and supervision. Section 38 of the Act when exempts all uses of insecticides for non insecticidal purposes from the provisions of the Act, would still leave the residual power in the Ministry of Agriculture to ensure that use of the substance is actually being made for non insecticidal purposes and not for insecticidal purposes.
The impugned notification issued by the Government of India does not lack the authority nor specifications of Central Insecticide Board and Registration Committee under the Ministry of Agriculture as the permitting authority, is impermissible under the law.
The petitioners as well as the private respondents i.e. the local manufacturers of boric acid have presented different data of import permission sought and granted. These figures show a huge cleavage. The data produced by the petitioners would suggest permission was granted for a small proportion of the quantity demanded by the importer. Whereas the data produced by the respondents would suggest, much of the demand was met. Such data picked for a small period without anything further cannot establish mala fides nor lack of it. In any case, policy formation through subordinate legislation is entirely different from its implementation. The former may be perfectly valid whereas the later may be defective.
Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2017 (8) TMI 503 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Classification of imported goods - pellet mill and spare parts for shrimp feed machinery - whether part of pellet mill and spare parts of shrimp feed machinery can be classified under CTH 8436 as claimed by the appellant or otherwise under 8438 as per the stand of the department? - Held that: - The HSN notes for 8436 reads .The heading covers machinery, not falling in headings 84.32 to 84.35, which is of the type used on farms (including agricultural schools, co-operatives or testing stations), in forestry, market gardens, or poultry-keeping or bee-keeping farms or the like. However, it excludes machines clearly of a kind designed for industrial use - Notwithstanding the appellant's protestations that the impugned goods are parts of shrimp feed machinery for use in their own aqua farms, that does not come through from the facts on hand. Appellant has not adduced any proof to establish such a contention. On the other hand, the very name of the appellant, Laila Global Feed Pvt. Ltd., prima facie, appears to indicate that they are in the business of manufacture of shrimp feed. It is also not the case that appellant are only a shrimp farm and that they are importing the goods for use in production of shrimp feed in their own farm.
As early as in 2002, the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide their judgment in Collector of Customs, Bombay Vs Business Farms Ltd. [2002 (1) TMI 68 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] relying upon their earlier decision in Collector Vs Wood Craft Products Ltd. [1995 (3) TMI 93 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] laid down that Explanatory Notes to HSN not only has persuasive value but entitled to the greater consideration in classifying the goods under Central Excise & Customs Tariff.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (8) TMI 502 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Jurisdiction - power of DRI to issue SCN - Held that: - the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of BSNL Vs. UOI [2017 (6) TMI 688 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has dealt with the identical issue where the notice was also issued by DRI. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has considered the judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Vs. UOI [2016 (8) TMI 1181 - SUPREME COURT], which is stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where the petitioner is permitted to review the challenge depending on the outcome of the appeals filed by the UOI in the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Court in the case of Mangli Impex Ltd. - we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the availability of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of Mangli Impex - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (8) TMI 501 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Mutilation of Imported goods before provisional release - HMS/Re-Rollable scrap - Held that: - the report of Chartered Engineer is not supported by any market enquiry or has not assigned any reasons as to how he has held the same to be New CRGo Sheets and the material which possesses the properties of a electric insulation. If such a material does not poses such properties, it is scrap only. No expert opinion has been obtained from any laboratory to get tested the said goods by the respondent whether the material is prime in nature or not.The pre inspection certificate issued by the Agency certified by DGFT has not been rejected or objected to by the authorities below. No enquiries have been made overseas to find out the composition of the material. In that circumstances, the report of the chartered engineer is not acceptable, as he is not a metallurgical engineer, therefore, in the absence any evidence on record, the goods are to be cleared as scrap, therefore, there is no requirement of any mutilation.
The goods are to be released immediately under section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962, on furnishing of Bond - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (8) TMI 500 - CESTAT CHENNAI
DEPB Benefit - job-work - suppression of facts - N/N. 32/97 - Held that: - the DEPB scheme did not envisage grant of duty credit only on the value addition portion, in a situation where the import content did not suffer incidence of customs duty. Therefore goods imported with full customs duty exemption or goods with NIL rates of customs duty cannot then become eligible for DEPB credit when processed and resultant product reexported even if there is value addition in the export product.
The appellant has imported goods with full exemption from customs duties under Notification No.32/1997-Cus, which is a specific exemption to goods imported for execution of an export order for jobbing. Amongst various conditionalities of that notification, there is a requirement that the imported goods are utilized only for the discharge of export obligation and that FOB value of the resultant products exported is at least 10% more than the CIF value of the goods imported. We therefore find that the Notification No.32/97 is a beneficial provision to facilitate such processes involving jobbing without creating the need for the job worker in India to suffer incidence of customs duties on the imported goods. Precisely due to the requirement that import content of export goods have to necessarily suffer incidence of customs duty for claiming DEPB credit, the said notification No.32/97-Cus also laid down that DEPB was not applicable to export of a commodity or product, interalia, manufactured and or exported by a 100% EOU or by an unit in a free trade zone or export processing zone etc. In fact, even in the case of export of goods of foreign origin, DEPB is made inapplicable, unless the goods have been manufactured or processed or on which similar operations have been carried out in India.
CBEC in their Circular No.26/2002 dt. 16.5.2002, which unequivocally clarified that once the party has availed the benefit of Customs Notification No.32/97, then they become disentitled to DEPB benefit and that the facility available under N/N. 32/97 and 34/97 (DEPB scheme) are exclusive and independent of each other - Both these circulars have been issued based on complaints or detection of ineligible availments of both the N/N. 32/97 and N/N. 34/97 (DEPB/drawback) noted by CBEC. Hence these circulars will definitely have retrospective effect.
Demand upheld - penalty reduced to ₹ 10,00,000/- - decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (8) TMI 499 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Valuation - Import and re-export of garments (night wear) - It appeared that the importer had made an attempt to import goods of inferior quality, of Indian origin, into India and re-export the same to Russia in contravention of the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 - hawala transactions - Held that: - Every country including India, consistently encourages exports. With the intention of export promotion, Government has put in place various incentives to exporters like drawback, rebate, DEPB etc. But by no stretch of imagination can it be considered that the Government, or for that matter the legislature, would facilitate or support exports of inferior quality goods at highly over inflated values. Perpetrators of such modus operandi have dubious intentions behind their actions, namely, to fraudulently claim ineligible drawback or other export incentives or even for the purpose of money laundering or hawala transactions. There can be no doubt that such attempts to defraud should be meted out with the adverse legal consequences that have been put in place.
It has been proved beyond doubt that the alleged import and further onward attempt to re-export to Russia by manipulating/ fabricating the import documents and the value is very much in contravention of the provisions of Customs Act, 1962. This being the case, we are unable to find any infirmity with the decision of the adjudicating authority interalia, that of ordering re-fixing of the declared assessable value to ₹ 15,31,994/-, ordering confiscation of the goods, allowing redemption on payment of fine of ₹ 3,82,000/- after payment of appropriate duty along with interest thereon, as also imposition of penalties under various provisions of the Customs Act, 1962.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (8) TMI 498 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Valuation of imported goods - Sartorius brand of Electronic Balances - undervaluation - NIDB data of contemporaneous imports - main case of appellant is that Revenue has not procured any evidence to show that appellant has paid more than the declared price i.e. the appellant has paid any amount over and above the transaction value to their supplier - authenticity of documents produced by SMIPL through Shri N. Ramesh, on which the case of Revenue is based upon - confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - Held that: - It is apparent from cross examination of Shri N. Ramesh, that he does not know the real source of these documents. He has just been handed over the documents to be given to Customs. He was handed over these documents by Sh Mohan Bhatt GM sales and marketing. Sh Mohan Bhatt has not been examined in this regard. The documents are not issued in his office and he has no knowledge about their authenticity. He has simply received the said documents from another person in his organization. While they have handed over photocopies of the said invoices they are not in possession of the originals. It is not in doubt that they are competitor of the appellants in the market. The cross examination shows the contradictions as at one point he says he does not know who handed over the invoices at another point he seems to be sure who gave it to him - The documents produced in these circumstances cannot be straight away relied upon as true and correct. If revenue wished to rely on these documents they needed to corroborate it from the source of the documents. They should have conducted suitable enquiries directly from the office of Sartorius Germany.
Reliance placed upon the manufacturers pricelists which were provided by M/s. SMIPL - Held that: - These pricelists for 2002 and 2006 are only zerox and unsigned copies and they are not certified by the parent company or by their officer. They are on plain paper and not on the letterhead of the Sartorius Germany. They do not bear any signature and logo of the parent company. The pricelists for the year 2003, 2005 and 2007 produced by SMIPL cannot be relied as their source has not been verified and as same are not authenticated or certified by the parent company. The Revenue has not verified genuineness of the pricelists or the invoices relied upon from the principal manufacturer in Germany. These unsigned and unauthenticated documents, which are not on the letterhead of foreign principal cannot be relied to sustain the charge of undervaluation. Moreover merely pricelists of the foreign supplier/manufacturer cannot be considered as a proof of transaction value.
NIDB data of contemporaneous imports - The appellants have contended that these imports cannot be compared with the imports made by them for the reason that they are bulk importers while the imports listed in NIDB data are retail /one off imports - Held that: - A perusal of the NIDB data shows that the imports are indeed retail imports apparently by actual users. The appellants are undoubtedly traders and bulk importers and thus the two are not at same commercial level. Moreover their claim of importing goods without facility of after sales service and stock lots has not been disputed. While the price difference is very high and gives rise to suspicion, it cannot be said with reasonable certainty that the appellants have done undervaluation.
Result of market inquiries conducted by revenue - Held that: - The market enquiries show that the appellants are selling the goods at higher prices and are recovering some amount in cash. The market enquiries just show that the product can be sold at much higher price as compared to the price at which it has been imported. It does not by any stretch of imagination prove that the goods have been undervalued at the time of import. Local sale price of the imported goods can at best be a corroborative evidence, but it cannot be considered as primary evidence of undervaluation unless the transaction value is discarded in terms of rule 3. In the instant case no evidence for rejection of transaction value has been brought about. Neither any evidence of any money being transferred over and above the declared price been brought out.
There is no evidence brought on record by the Revenue that appellant has paid any amount over and above invoice price shown at the time of clearance of the impugned goods - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (8) TMI 496 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Confiscation - import of old and used pipes with plastic material i.e. thermally insulated with polyurethane form - Hazardous waste - Held that: - In the reports submitted by the Chartered Engineer as well as CRCL, nowhere it has been concluded that the plastic material which has been imported by the appellant is hazardous waste. Moreover, no expert opinion has been obtained by the Revenue to substantiate the allegation that the said goods are hazardous in nature. Therefore, the observations made by the authorities below are based on the assumption and presumptions - there is no undertaking given by the appellant that they want to re-export the goods at their own. In fact there was no material to be accepted by the appellant at that stage that imported goods are hazardous goods, there is no question of undertaking by the appellant.
The plastic material is hazardous waste is based only on assumption and presumptions, therefore the goods are not liable for confiscation and no redemption fine can be imposed on the appellant - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (8) TMI 495 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Quantum of Redemption fine - penalty - import of restricted item - photocopier machine - Held that: - the imposition of fine and penalty in the present case is not exorbitant because the imported photocopier during the relevant time was not permissible to import under Foreign Trade Policy without a license as it was restricted item, therefore the appellant has violated the Foreign Trade Policy and therefore, both the authorities have imposed fine and penalty which in my opinion is not exorbitant - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (8) TMI 459 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Import of restricted item - old and used digital multifunctional print and copier machines - misdeclaration of value - Held that: - the restrictions were imposed from June 2012 whereas the appellants imported the multifunctional copying machines prior to June 2012 when the said item was not made restricted - the appellant's case is covered by the decision of the Madras High Court in the case of Sai Graphic Systems [2013 (5) TMI 650 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], which is squarely applicable in the facts and circumstances wherein the Hon'ble High Court of Madras has held that import of goods have taken place earlier i.e., before 5th June 2012. Therefore, such reliance made on the Notification will not help the respondents in any manner to advance their case - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (8) TMI 433 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Maintainability of petition - adjustment towards antidumping duty on the imported goods - time limitation - Section 28 of the Customs Act - Held that: - Admittedly the said amount was adjusted by making voluntary payment along with others by the Petitioner though it was time barred. The law is settled that the Revenue Department/Authorities are not required to issue a demand beyond 5 years period under Section 28 of the Customs Act. By impugned order dated 30.05.2016, the said amount is adjusted towards antidumping duty on goods imported apart from the other order.
The Settlement Commissioner, while passing the final order on Petitioner's Application in para 2.2 referring to Chart even noted the four bills of entry beyond the period of 5 years including the issue in question. Therefore, having once noted, there was no question of appropriation of this amount by the SNC. The Petitioner's voluntary deposit, in no way, can bring the said amount within the purview of 5 years period so prescribed. The position of law of Bill of Entry beyond the period of 5 years is clear. Therefore, on this sole ground, we are inclined to consider the case of the Petitioner as contended - The bar of Section 127J needs to be considered from the point of the authority in question. But, in view of above observation on admitted position on record, as case is made out, we are inclined to invoke Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the present case. The parties cannot be remedyless if case is made out.
The Petitioner has no other alternative and efficacious remedy and as the writ petition against such order passed by the Settlement Commissioner in Settlement cases is maintainable - petition maintained.
-
2017 (8) TMI 432 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Reimbursement of Central Sales Tax (CST) - purchases of Medical Equipments from other suppliers in the course of inter-state Trade and Commerce - denial of benefit on the ground that the goods purchased from EOU - Held that: - there is no justifiable reason for the Respondent-Authority to deny such benefit of CST reimbursement to the petitioner -Company merely because the goods in question are purchased from a Unit situated in EOUs/SEZs/EHTP/STPI specified Zones or areas and deny the said benefit merely because the Units are located in EOU/SEZ area. Irrespective of the location of the Manufacturing Units selling such products to the petitioner - Company in the course of inter-state Trade and charging CST, the goods continue to be the "Goods manufactured in India" which is the requirement in the said Foreign Trade Policy for entitling the petitioner -Company to claim such reimbursement of CST paid under the Central Sales Tax Act, 1956.
Moreover, the specific amendment in the said Foreign Trade Policy for the year 2015-2020 removed the said anomaly and discrimination as to the source of Units from which the petitioner may purchase such goods in the course of inter-state trade and commerce and the said amendment can be treated only as a clarificatory one and can be applied to the previous period also - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2017 (8) TMI 431 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Absolute Confiscation - Foreign Currency of 13500 Euros and Indian Currency of ₹ 10,00,000/- - The Appellate Commissioner upheld the absolute confiscation of Indian Currency and passed an order on 25.05.2016, by rejecting the order passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) of converting of absolute confiscation to allowance of confiscation on redemption - whether the respondent can refuse to implement the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), on the ground that they have filed a revision before the Central Government? - Held that: - The High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of NVR Forgings Vs. Union of India [2016 (5) TMI 7 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] considering the validity of an order passed by the Revisional Authority of the Central Government in the Cadre of Joint Secretary to Government testing the correctness of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and while considering the validity of such an order, held that the cadre of Joint Secretary to the Government of India is equivalent to the cadre of Commissioner of customs (Appeals) and therefore, the Revisional Authority cannot sit in judgment against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) - non-implementing order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) on the ground that the revision was pending, cannot be countenanced.
The petitioner having succeeded before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), cannot be directed to file Bank guarantee for the entire amount and the Revenue, which has filed the revision, having lost before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), it would be sufficient, if a bond is executed by the petitioner to secure the interest - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2017 (8) TMI 430 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Classification of imported goods - old & used Digital Multifunctional Print & Copier Machines with accessories and attachments - release of goods on payment of redemption fine and penalty - Held that: - similar issue decided in the case of Shivam International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin [2013 (3) TMI 408 - CESTAT BANGALORE] wherein the Tribunal disposed of a batch of the appeals by holding that the impugned orders to the extent of confiscation and consequent penalties challenged in respect of 'old & used digital multifunctional print and copier machines' are incorrect and liable to be set aside - the imposition of redemption fine and penalties on the appellants is not sustainable in law, for the used Digital Multifunction Machines imported by the appellants.
Redemption fine in case of imported ‘analog photocopiers’ - Held that: - With regard to this item, no finding has been given in favour of the appellants. Therefore, with regard to 'analogue photocopiers' the concerned appellants are liable to pay redemption fine and penalty.
Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (8) TMI 429 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Refund claim - Cess - unjust enrichment - Held that: - issue is no more res integra and is squarely covered by the decision in the case of ASIA PACIFIC COMMODITIES LTD. Versus ASSISTANT COMMR. OF CUS., KAKINADA-I [2012 (11) TMI 919 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT], where the cess was levied after the same was abolished. The amount realized from the foreign buyer was only FOB value. It was held by the Hon'ble Andhra Pradesh High Court that all duties, cess etc are to the sellers account and also as the amount realized as per the Banker's certificate was only FOB value, therefore there is no unjust enrichment and the cess had to be refunded - the refund of cess is not hit by unjust enrichment and the appellants are entitled for the refund - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (8) TMI 428 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Confiscation of goods - shipping bills were not entered in export goods arrival register maintained at CFS, STT, ICD, Dadri - drawback claim - Held that: - it is very clearly held by the Original Authority that the clearance for export of goods was given by the Customs Authorities that goods were exported and the export proceeds were realized. The Original Authority in the Order-in-Original has made some observations on few issues about the procedure followed. The appellant in the above stated grounds of appeal has very clearly submitted the procedure being followed in the EDI System and submitted that the entries in the EDI System are based on protection through password and therefore, we do not find any strength in the allegations leveled against the appellant in the said show cause notice about procedure being not followed.
The requirement of admissibility of drawback is that the goods are exported and export proceeds are realized and at the time of export, shipping bills under the claim of drawback is filed and assessed accordingly - the appellant had followed the proper procedure and Let Export Order was given by Customs Authorities and goods were exported and export proceeds were realized.
SCN not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
....
|
