|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 158 Records
-
2017 (8) TMI 771 - SC ORDER
Imposition of ADD - rubber chemicals - imported from China PR and Korea RP - N/N. 4/2016 - CUS (ADD) dated 29/1/2016 of Ministry of Finance - principles of natural justice - the decision in the case of M/s Rishiroop Polymers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Kumho Petrochemicals Co. Ltd. Versus Union of India/DA [2016 (11) TMI 88 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] contested - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - present SLP dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2017 (8) TMI 770 - SC ORDER
Imposition of ADD - rubber chemicals - imported from China PR and Korea RP - N/N. 4/2016 - CUS (ADD) dated 29/1/2016 of Ministry of Finance - principles of natural justice - the decision in the case of M/s Rishiroop Polymers Pvt. Ltd. and M/s Kumho Petrochemicals Co. Ltd. Versus Union of India/DA [2016 (11) TMI 88 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] contested - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - present SLP dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2017 (8) TMI 769 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Restoration of appeal - the Show Cause Notice dated 12th August, 2016 was not received by the Petitioner - Held that: - There were three notices of hearing sent to the Petitioner while the adjudication process was on. These notices dated 2nd February, 20th March and 20th April, 2017 appeared to have been sent by the Department by speed post to the above address. While the Department, in its file, has the postal receipts for dispatch of these notices by speed post, there is no tracking report showing whether, in fact, they were delivered to the Petitioner. Section 153 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 (‘Act’) mandates the service of a notice, including an SCN, “by registered post or by such courier as may be approved by the Commissioner of Customs”. In the present case, the SCN was dispatched by ordinary post and not by the registered post. Consequently, the Department is unable to satisfy the Court that in compliance with Section 153(a) of the Act, it has, in fact, served the SCN in question on the Petitioner. Consequently, the benefit of doubt in this regard must go to the Petitioner.
The matter is restored to the file of the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), New Customs House, New Delhi, for a fresh hearing of the Petitioner and passage of a fresh adjudication order on merits without reference to the orders that has been set aside by this Court - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2017 (8) TMI 768 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Rate of customs duty - prawn feed - release of seized consignment - Held that: - The chemical composition of the consignment imported was allowed to be checked by the authorities by the order dated January 10, 2017. The report filed in Court by the authorities does not demonstrate that the prawn feed imported by the petitioners has the chemical composition attracting 30% Customs duty. The form of prawn feed has also not been substantiated by the Department. The claim of the Department is not sustained by the report filed in Court - petitioners are therefore liable to pay Customs duty at 5% - the Customs Authorities will release the consignment imported by the Bill of Entry Nos. 6834094, dated September 23, 2016 and 6856923, dated September 26, 2016, in the event the petitioners have paid Customs duty at 5% - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2017 (8) TMI 767 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Revocation of CHA licence - forfeiture of security deposit - principles of natural justice - Held that: - it cannot be disputed that the principles of natural justice are applicable to the proceedings under the Customs Act as well and if such principles are not complied with, that will vitiate the proceedings. Law is settled that in an enquiry when documents are relied on against a person either copies of the documents should be furnished to the person against whom it is sought to be relied on or at least the contents thereof should be disclosed to him - None of the documents, including the offence report, were furnished to the appellant. Even the contents of these documents were also not disclosed to them. In other words, these documents were relied on against the appellant behind their back and thus in violation of principles of natural justice.
Statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act - Held that: - In terms of Section 138 B (2) of the Customs Act such statements could not have been used in any proceedings under the Act without the person who made the statement being examined as a witness, so long as the maker of the statement is available. Insofar as this case is concerned even the department has no case that the makers of the statements, who are very much available, were examined. If that be so, these statements could not have been relied on.
The appeal is disposed remitting the matter to the respondent Commissioner who shall appoint an Enquiry Officer who shall conduct a fresh enquiry - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (8) TMI 766 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Valuation of imported goods - used monitors of different brands in assorted screen sizes - enhancement of assessable value - Held that: - it is very clear that the imported goods were used monitors of different brands in assorted screen sizes and the department had to resort to Chartered Engineer assessment and also resorted to Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 to arrive at the enhanced value of US$ 8861.50. This being so, they cannot now allege arbitrariness. We therefore do not find any reason to interfere with the enhancement of the assessable value.
Redemption fine - penalty - Held that: - it is very reasonable and proportionate to the enhanced value and also to the nature of the offence. This being so, the prayer of the appellants on this score also fails to impress.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (8) TMI 765 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Classification of imported goods - The coal so imported were claimed to be steam coal which never attracted any duty during the material period. But other coal i.e. Bituminous coal falling under sub-heading 2701 12 00 attracted 5% duty as per N/N. 12/2012-Cus., dated 17-3-2012 - Held that: - Regarding the classification of the coal, different Benches of CESTAT have taken different views at the instance of the parties. The Chennai and Ahmedabad Benches prima facie considered these are the ‘steam coal’ attracting no duty. This was followed by Mumbai Bench. On the other hand, Bangalore Bench of the CESTAT considered it as ‘Bituminous coal’ attracting duty to 5% - the matter is subjudice before the Hon’ble Supreme Court - liberty is granted to the applicants/assessees to come again before this Tribunal after having the final verdict from the Apex Court, within the prescribed time, if advised so.
-
2017 (8) TMI 763 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Valuation - sanitary ware and bathroom fittings - it was alleged that all the imports made by the appellant during the last one year by way of 30 BE were undervalued - Held that: - apart from the market inquiries there is no other evidence on record disapproving the transaction value. It is well settled law that such market inquiries cannot be made the basis for enhancing the assessable value. As such, we are of the view that impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) calls for no interference - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (8) TMI 686 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Waiver of rent/demurrage charges for import of Particle Board - The petitioner seeks for waiver of the detention charges on the ground that the detention was not on account of their fault, as the Department had detained the goods - Held that: - this is unreasonable because after the order was passed on 28.12.2016, effective steps have been taken by the petitioner to clear the cargo and it has been done in the shortest possible time on 06.01.2017. Therefore, the third respondent should waive the rent or demurrage on the goods for the entire period i.e., from 02.12.2016 till it was cleared on 06.01.2017.
The question of now interpreting the order are extending partial relief is not permissible as the Regulation uses the expression shall not charge any rent or demurrage. This, mandates that the third respondent is prohibited from charging any rent or demurrage during the period of detention. This having been certified by the second respondent, there is no escape from the rigour of Regulation No.6(1)(l). Thus, the matter is not contractual, but it involves the implementation of a statutory regulation. Therefore, the Writ Petition filed by the petitioner is maintainable.
The rent/demurrage on the goods which were detained at the instance of second respondent is waived - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2017 (8) TMI 685 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Provisional Release of goods - petitioner seeks appropriate direction, so that the goods can be exported - Held that: - as finished leather, as per the extent policy, is freely exportable, while, generally, unfinished leather i.e. hides, skins, leather - tanned and untanned, are subject to export duty at the rate of 60%. It was made clear that the other conditions contained in Clauses 6, 7 and 8 of the order dated 23.11.2016 passed by the Commissioner remain unaltered - that part of the order dated 10.1.2017 requiring furnishing of security in the form of bank guarantee was directed to be stayed. Further, the communication requiring the petitioners therein to describe the subject goods as 'unfinished goods' was also stayed and the respondents were also directed to release the goods forthwith upon fulfillment of the conditions stipulated in the order dated 22.12.2016. Subsequently, the matter was listed for reporting compliance and by order dated 30.1.2017, the writ petitions were closed.
The writ petition is disposed of by directing the respondents to grant provisional release of the goods subject to the petitioner complying with the conditions imposed by this Court - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2017 (8) TMI 684 - SUPREME COURT
Import of gold and diamond jewellery items - Baggage Rules - passing through the Green Channel - Smuggling - Whether the items are personal effects and no duty is leviable on the same - whether in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the show-cause notice dated 12.12.2002 and order dated 14.08.2003 are liable to be quashed or not? - Held that: - the respondent herein did not violate the provisions of Section 77 of the Act since the necessary declaration was made by the respondent while passing through the Green Channel. Such declarations are deemed to be implicit and devised with a view to facilitate expeditious and smooth clearance of the passenger. Further, as per the International Convention on the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs Procedures (Kyoto 18.05.1973), a passenger going through the green channel is itself a declaration that he has no dutiable or prohibited articles.
A harmonious reading of Rule 7 of the Baggage Rules, 1998 read with Appendix E (2), the respondent was not carrying any dutiable goods because the goods were the bona fide jewellery of the respondent for her personal use and was intended to be taken out of India. Also, with regard to the proximity of purchase of jewellery, all the jewellery was not purchased a few days before the departure of the respondent from UK, a large number of items had been in use for a long period. It did not make any difference whether the jewellery is new or used. There is also no relevance of the argument that since all the jewellery is to be taken out of India, it was, therefore, deliberately brought to India for taking it to Singapore. Foreign tourists are allowed to bring into India jewellery even of substantial value provided it is meant to be taken out of India with them and it is a pre-requisite at the time of making endorsements on the passport. Therefore, bringing jewellery into India for taking it out with the passenger is permissible and is not liable to any import duty.
Also, from the present facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be inferred that the jewellery was meant for import into India on the basis of return ticket which was found to be in the possession of the respondent. Moreover, we cannot ignore the contention of the respondent that her parents at the relevant time were in Indonesia and she had plans of proceeding to Indonesia. Some of the jewellery items purchased by the respondent were for her personal use and some were intended to be left with her parents in Indonesia.
In the absence of any facts on record about the nature and mode of concealment and also any finding of the lower authority that jewellery was kept in a way to evade detection on examination of the baggage, it has to be held that there was no concealment as such. It is seen that the respondent chose the Green Channel for clearance of her baggage. She committed no violation of law or infraction of any instruction for clearance of the baggage through the green channel as she being a tourist had no dutiable goods to declare under the Baggage Rules - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant-Revenue.
-
2017 (8) TMI 683 - SC ORDER
Quantum of paltry amount involved in the appeal - Import - Re-import of exported goods - the decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), BANGALORE Versus ACE DESIGNERS LTD. [2006 (1) TMI 424 - CESTAT, BANGALORE], contested - Held that: - In view of the paltry amount involved in the matter, we decline to entertain the civil appeal. Accordingly, the civil appeal is dismissed
-
2017 (8) TMI 682 - SC ORDER
Enhancement of Anti Dumping Duty - rubber chemicals known as PX13 (6 PPD) - Mid Term Review - Notification No. 92/2011-Cus. dated 20.09.2011 - imports of subject goods from PR China and Korea RP - Rule 23 of Anti Dumping Rules indicate the powers of the DA to review the need for continued imposition of any AD duty on its own initiative or upon request by any interested party - the decision in the case of M/s Rishiroop Polymers Pvt. Ltd., M/s Kumho Petrochemicals Limited and M/s National Organic Chemical Industries Ltd. Versus Designated Authority, DGAD Respondent Ministry of Finance [2016 (9) TMI 1166 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] contested, where it was held that there is significant change in the facts and circumstances that it is considered necessary either to withdraw or modify appropriately the AD duty which has been imposed the DA can act accordingly - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - SLP dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2017 (8) TMI 681 - SC ORDER
Condonation of delay - Entitlement of exemption - benefit of N/N. 21/02-Cus., dated 1-3-02 - concessional rate of duty - the decision in the case of Giavudan Indian Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner [2016 (2) TMI 947 - SUPREME COURT], contested - Held that: - The review petitions are dismissed on the ground of delay as well as on merits in terms of the signed order.
-
2017 (8) TMI 680 - SC ORDER
Failure to make pre-deposit of 7.5% to entertain appeal - SCN issued for non-fulfilment of export obligation - the decision in the case of Anjani Technoplast Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs [2015 (10) TMI 2446 - DELHI HIGH COURT], contested, where it was held that Section 35 F indicated that on and after the date of its enforcement an Assessee in appeal was required to deposit the stipulated percentage of duty and if it failed to do so, CESTAT shall not entertain the appeal, Appellant deposited a sum of ₹ 4,95,532 on 8th May 2015 which was admittedly not 7.5% of the demanded duty as confirmed by Commissioner of Customs (Export) - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - present appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (8) TMI 679 - SC ORDER
Duty demand - Import of Cocoa powder in the name of flour - the decision in the case of Commr. of Customs Mangalore Versus M/s Kushalchand & Co. [2015 (12) TMI 246 - SUPREME COURT] contested - Held that: - Since the impugned notice is withdrawn albeit on the ground that it is barred by limitation, the present application has become infructuous and is dismissed as such.
-
2017 (8) TMI 631 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Legality of the seizure - imported mobile phone battery cell - delay in passing an order of provisional release in respect of the consignment imported - Held that: - this Court has been shown copy of the Adjudication Order dated 20th July, 2017 passed by the Joint Commissioner ICD-TKD (Import), New Delhi, inter alia, rejecting the declared assessable value of the goods imported under B/E dated 3rd May, 2017 while simultaneously re-assessing the value of these imported goods, which were seized by the Department - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2017 (8) TMI 630 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Anti-dumping duty - Whether Amendment Notification dated January 23, 2014, amending Notification dated January 02, 2009 by allowing it to remain in force till January 01, 2015 issued after the expiry date of the original Notification i.e. January 01, 2014 is without any legal authority and is, therefore, null and void?
Held that: - as the facts involved in the present petition are identical to the Apex Court decision in Union of India vs. M/s. Kumho Petrochemicals Co. Ltd [2014 (7) TMI 732 - DELHI HIGH COURT], the impugned N/N. 37 of 2015, dt.6.8.2015 is quashed and set aside.
Besides seeking quashing of the impugned notification, the petitioners also seek a direction that the respondent be directed to refund anti-dumping duty paid by the petitioner after 25.7.2015. We are not inclined to grant this prayer in view of decision of this Court in Commissioner of Customs (Imports), Mumbai .vs. Kanakia Constructions Pvt. Ltd., [2008 (7) TMI 156 - HIGH COURT BOMBAY], wherein our Court has set aside the order of Central Excise, Customs and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal which had held that since antidumping duty is covered by Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975, the doctrine of unjust enrichment does not apply. This Court restored the issue to the Tribunal for fresh consideration and also examine whether the doctrine of unjust enrichment is applicable in the facts of the case.
The petitioners would be entitled to refund of anti-dumping duty paid after 25.7.2015 on our having set aside the N/N. 37/2015, it would be subject to compliance with the law - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2017 (8) TMI 629 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Refund claim - amount of exemption not claimed - rejection of refund on the ground of non-filing of appeal against the bills of entry, which had subsequent attained finality - Held that: - the record is clear that the competent officer though obliged to take heed of the prevailing situation, i.e., exemption notification which entitled the assessee to clear the goods without payment of duty upon being pointed out, the assessee is entitled to the refund of the amount, given that the amounts could not have been collected lawfully in the first place - refund cannot be denied - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (8) TMI 628 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Benefit of Concessional rate of duty - N/N. 21/2002 - imported SPECO Asphalt Mixing Plant Model - The original authority observed that the catalogue from the supplier did not have any indication that the mixing plant is with the bag type filters and therefore held that the conditions of the notification are not fulfilled for which the benefit of concessional rate of duty cannot be allowed - whether the goods imported as such would form to the description mentioned in Sl. No. 230 and that too only to the effect that whether it would confirm the bag type filter arrangements? - interpretation of statute - Held that: - The respondents have imported filter bags and the adjudicating authority had denied the benefit holding that since the housing has been imported by them, it cannot be called as bag filter arrangement. The Commissioner (Appeals) has discussed in detail with regard to the meaning of the word Arrangement and how such word as to be interpreted when used along with the words bag filter arrangements - In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) has expressed his view that when the plant/machinery are imported for road construction activity and put to use by actual user, denial of the benefit on the sole ground that the housing for the filters are not imported does not keep with the purpose of interpretation of the notification - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
|
