|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 43 Records
-
1998 (2) TMI 291 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... the lower authorities. In that view of the matter, the seizure and absolute confiscation of Indian Currency is required to be set aside in terms of the ratio of the judgments cited by the learned Counsel and on the findings arrived at by this Bench. Ordered accordingly. 10. emsp I notice that the penalty imposed is only Rs. 4,000/-. The learned Advocate submits that in view of the Indian Currency not being confiscable and some items are also not being confiscable, the penalty is required to be reduced. Noting this submission, I reduce the penalty to Rs. 2,000/-. 11. emsp In the result, absolute confiscation of items at Sl. Nos. 5, 7, 8, 9(A) and (B) is set aside. All these goods are directed to be returned to the appellant. 12. emsp As regards the other items are concerned, the matter is remanded to the lower authorities for considering the prayer of the appellant for release of the same on imposition of redemption fine. 13. emsp The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
1998 (2) TMI 288 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ed by the appellant was 51 paise per piece. Hence it may be possible that the 1991 prices (June and December) were lower than the 1990 price of 0.70 per dozen adopted by the Collector. Hence we are of the view that it would be in order to apply the rate of Rs. 73.00 per gross (144 pieces) CIF for the subject goods. The assessment has to be finalised on that basis. Penalty is justified. The appellant has resorted to a ruse to declare a low value by using an artificial and ambiguous description ldquo Gross set rdquo for referring to the quantity and claiming it to mean 288 zip fasteners. As we have arrived at a lower assessable value based on the price of Rs. 73 per gross, as compared to the higher value adopted by the Collector in the impugned order, reduction in the quantum of penalty is called for. Accordingly, we reduce the penalty from Rs. 3 lakhs (Rupees three lakhs) to Rs. 1 lakh (Rupees one lakh). The impugned order is modified accordingly and the appeal partly allowed.
-
1998 (2) TMI 287 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Fax machine combined with telephone answering machine ... ... ... ... ..... und that the concerned staff dealing with the matter was not available. We, however, decline to consider his prayer for adjournment, since the issue is in a short compass and could be dis- posed of by hearing the Revenue rsquo s learned Representative. We have consider-ed the pleas advanced by the learned SDR, Shri T. Premkumar. The citations re- lied on by him did not apply to the facts and circumstances of the cases. One of the items, for example, in the case of Peico Electronics and Electricals, was not ex- empt under the relevant notification. However, in the present case, it is admitt- ed to the Revenue that both the Fax Machine and Telephone Answering Mach- ine were separately entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 59/88-Cus. There is, therefore, no reason not to extend the benefit of the said notification to an article which combines both the aforesaid facilities. Consequently, we do not find any substance in the appeals of the Revenue. Hence, we dismiss the same.
-
1998 (2) TMI 281 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), CHENNAI
Export promotion - Value Based Advance Licensing Scheme (VABAL) under exemption Notification No. 203/92-Cus.,
-
1998 (2) TMI 273 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... f entry, stamp papers and declaration form signed by him from the business premises of the appellant and the appellant rsquo s failure to produce Shri Abdul Samad Wazir Khan before the Customs authorities is not by itself sufficient to hold that the appellant had either connived or colluded in the fraudulent import of the car in question. It is to be noted that the appellant is a Customs Clearing Agent and in the normal course of his business, he would be in possession of documents required for clearance of imported goods such as bills of entry etc. What is required for the purpose of establishing a link between the appellant and the fraudulent import is something more than this, and this vital link in the chain of events is missing. Since the evidence on record is not sufficient for driving home the charge of fraudulent import of the Mitsubishi Pajero car against the appellant, I extend the benefit of doubt to the appellant, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1998 (2) TMI 272 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Import - DEEC scheme - Advance licence ... ... ... ... ..... een includible in the deposition of goods imported under an advance licence. The object is undoubtedly to ensure that the benefit of the notification is not denied to goods merely received, when they were imported, and they were not covered by an advance licence but which the Government extended shall get the benefit of the DEEC Scheme, and so far what it subsequently issued an advance licence. These conditions would not apply in view of this specific finding of the Additional Collector that the import was made under an advance licence. 6. emsp It is strange that the importer chose to bond the goods when no duty would be payable on them, which would be the case, if they were importer under an advance licence. We however cannot discount the specific finding of the Additional Collector that the importer had a valid advance import licence when the goods were cleared from the bond. We have therefore no alternative but to allow the appeal. Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
1998 (2) TMI 262 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ppellants herein. We are of the view that in view of the categorical definition of lsquo parts of general use rsquo in Section Note (2) of Section XV, the goods are specifically covered under Tariff Heading 73.15 read with Section Note (1)(g) of Section XVI. This cannot at all be covered under Tariff Heading 84.32 as contended by the appellant firm. Reliance placed by the appellants on an earlier order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is not of much help to the appellants inasmuch as the said Order-in-Appeal basically relates to the practice of the Customs House. He has not gone into the contends of the Chapter Notes mentioned above. Therefore, reliance placed by the appellants herein on the earlier Order-in-Appeal of the Commissioner (Appeals) would not be of any help to him, particularly when the lower authorities have specifically relied on the two Section Notes mentioned above. We do not find any substance in the pleas of the appellants. Consequently. we dismiss the appeals.
-
1998 (2) TMI 258 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Confiscation of conveyance - Redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... identified. I am, therefore, of the view in the over-all facts and circumstances of the case that the truck has been rightly confiscated by the adjudicating authority. 4.2 emsp There is, however, some case, as urged by the ld. Advocate, for reduction in the redemption fine inasmuch as the truck was seized in June, 1994 i.e. more than 3.5 years ago. The truck is still lying in the custody of the department. Due to non-operation of the truck for a long period on account of fixing a very high security for provisional release its position might have deteriorated substantially. It has also caused a loss of business to the appellant for this period. Further, the appellant had no knowledge about the mis-doing of the driver. Keeping in view, the over-all facts and circumstances of the case, I reduce the fine from Rs. 30,000/- to Rs. 15,000/-. 4.3 emsp But for the modification in the quantum of redemption fine, the Appeal is otherwise rejected. Appeal disposed of in the above manner.
-
1998 (2) TMI 256 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... themselves have exempted from the purview of duty, the import of Suphated Fish Oils and Sulphated Neatsfoot oil. The goods imported are Suphated Neatsfood Oil. The clarification given by the Council for Leather Export indicate that they were freely importable. More-over the DGFT by its communication IPC Circular 53/92-97, dated 14-6-1995 had indicated that Sulphated Fish Oil is a freely importable item without licence. This clarification even though made in 1995, should be noted has been made during the course of the licence period namely 1992-97. As has been rightly argued by the ld. Counsel Shri J.C. Patel, that if the goods are not freely importable why notification under Section 25 of the Customs Act is made by the Customs Department exempting partially the goods from levy of Customs Duty. The order passed by the Appellate Collector is not at all correct in our view. Hence we set aside the same and restore the order of the Additional Collector of Customs. Appeal allowed.
-
1998 (2) TMI 230 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... The Notification 132/61-Cus. was issued under the Customs Act to allow re-imports of goods earlier exported in certain conditions and Section 20 of the Customs Act is the only legal provision which covers such re-imports and between these two, the period for which such re-imported goods can lie under bond is also prescribed. 11. emsp In view of the aforesaid legal position, we find that there is no grey area on this issue and prior to 6-12-1994 all re-imports of exported goods under 100 EOU attract provisions of Section 20 ibid read with Notification 132/61-Cus., dated 9-12-1961. We, therefore, find that the bond executed by the appellants in terms of the said notification is a valid document in law. We also therefore find that the demand under Section 28 of the Customs Act upheld by the impugned Order-in-Appeal does not suffer from any legal infirmity and no interference is called for upon it. Therefore, there is no merit in these appeals and they are dismissed accordingly.
-
1998 (2) TMI 219 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... oods in the two cases and also because no manufacturers rsquo invoice was produced in respect of the goods, since the goods have been supplied by traders in both the cases. 5. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions. We observe that transaction value is the normal rule of acceptance of valuation of goods, unless it can be discarded for valid reason. We observe that discarding the transaction value on the basis of intelligence is not appropriate. In the absence of proper ground for discarding the transaction value, the valuation under Rule 8 i.e. under best judgment, cannot be resorted to. Learned Advocate, Shri P.K. Das is on the strong grounds for not adopting the pro rata value, when he cites the two decisions mentioned supra. We, therefore, hold that the Orders passed by the lower authorities are not on sound and legal footing. Consequently, we set aside the impugned Orders and allow the appeals of the appellants herein with consequential reliefs to each of them.
-
1998 (2) TMI 218 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... . ............... Representations have been received from the Trade that Central Excise Field formations have been collecting cess on tea waste. Cess is leviable on all tea produced in the country under the provisions of Tea Act, 1953 and no cess is leviable on tea waste or sweepings collected in tea factories. The matter has been examined by the Board and I am directed emsp 2. to say that no cess is to be collected on tea waste rsquo as defined under Section 25 of the Tea Act, 1953. Trade and Field formations may be suitably informed. emsp 3. Please acknowledge receipt of this Circular. emsp 4. Yours faithfully, Sd/- (MALLIKA ARYA) UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA. The instructions issued by the Board vide abovementioned letter show that no cess is leviable on the Tea Waste as defined under Section 25 of the Tea Act, 1953. 6. emsp In view of the above discussion, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned orders and the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed.
-
1998 (2) TMI 214 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Natural justice - Ex parte order ... ... ... ... ..... that ultimately the impugned order was passed on 14-2-1997. Therefore they could justifiably say that the Appellant should have been given another opportunity for personally explaining their case through their Counsel. It would also appear that they have submitted a detailed cross-objection to the department rsquo s appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) of which there is not much of a discussion, which also we feel is necessary especially when the Assistant Commissioner rsquo s order which is in favour of the Appellant is set aside. In the circumstances, therefore we are satisfied that this is a fit case that the Appellant be given a fresh opportunity for oral representation and in this view of the matter we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) for adjudication de novo in accordance with law after hearing the Appellant in the matter. We expect that the Commissioner (Appeals) to dispose of the matter as expeditiously as possible.
-
1998 (2) TMI 203 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... . Merely because a show cause notice has been issued, it does not mean that the price has been accepted at the level of US 1,220.00 per M.T. Apart from the foregoing facts of one evidence here, and another evidence on the other side, we agree with the finding of the lower appellate authority that the invoice price cannot be routinely discarded except on the strength of a clear evidence that the invoice is not genuine and it does not show the real price as has been transacted between the importer and the foreign supplier that something else has passed clandestinely between the importer and the foreign supplier. The transaction value can be discarded, in our view, for the reasons given in Rule 4 of the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 1988 and not otherwise. In the present case, we observe that no evidence has been brought on record by the Revenue so as to discard the value declared by the respondents herein. In view of the foregoing discussions, we dismiss the appeal of the Revenue.
-
1998 (2) TMI 189 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation, redemption fine and re-export ... ... ... ... ..... ic bags and covers in the drum in which rough emeralds were found. Significantly they were not mixed up with them but kept concealed separately as stated above, giving the lie to the claim that it was a supplier rsquo s mistake. Even on over-invoiced rough emeralds, the Appellants explanation fails to carry conviction, as it has been found that though the cheaper Zambian rough emeralds and costlier Brazilian roughs may be similar to some extent in colour and appearance, but can be distinguished without difficulty in their clarity and transparency. The Appellants being concerned with such import have been rightly penalised under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. However, considering that rough emeralds carry nil duty liability, we reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 15 lakhs to Rs. 6 lakhs (Rupees Six Lakhs only) and the penalty from Rs. 2 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh (Rupees One Lakh only). 12. emsp The order of the Commissioner is modified only to this extent. It is otherwise upheld.
-
1998 (2) TMI 188 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Adjudication - Appeal - Remand ... ... ... ... ..... formation goes the action is yet to be taken by the Department in terms of the aforesaid order of the Tribunal. 8. emsp Since the aforesaid order of the Tribunal, in a manner of speaking, is relevant and affects the present portion of the assessment of the consignment and the whole of it was required to be considered together we find that the request for remand was justified. We, therefore, set aside the orders of both the lower authorities and remand the matter back to the Assistant Commissioner with the observation that the directions of the Bench in the aforesaid order of the Tribunal equally apply to all the units and parts of the consignment and the consignments as a whole must be adjudged at one go. The Assistant Collector will give an opportunity to the appellants to make further submissions if any required to be made and produce such further documents as may be called for. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. Cross objections are also disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (2) TMI 139 - HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Export - Illegal Export - Detention ... ... ... ... ..... associate are facing trial in the Economic Offences Court at Chennai. In this view of the matter, the impugned order, Annexure P-5, is also liable to be quashed because it has been passed on non existent facts. It has been held in Gurjeet Kaur v. The Secretary to Government Punjab and others, 1996 (3) RCC 583, that when the detention order has been passed only on the basis of single incident of alleged smuggling and that no other material is available on the record from which it can be inferred that the petitioner had been indulging in smuggling of the goods previously, the ground of detention on non-existent facts, cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 21.Resultantly, I allow this petition and strike down the impugned order, Annexure P-5, with specific observation that the quashing of the impugned order, Annexure P-5, in no manner, will debar the Government from prosecuting the petitioner or any body else for violating the Customs law. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (2) TMI 132 - HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
Drawback - Condonation of delay - Statutory rights ... ... ... ... ..... g practice or policies cannot override the statutory rights provided under the Act. The Central Government must consider the merits of the claim made and dispose of the application on merits. Admittedly, the same having not been done in the instant case, the impugned communication Annexure-B is liable to be quashed. 7. Accordingly, this petition is allowed, the impugned communication Annexure-B, dated 6th of February 1990 is quashed and the Central Government is directed to consider the application/representation filed by the petitioner as per Annexure-A, dated 10th of October, 1989 under Rule 15 of the Customs and Central Excise Duties Drawback Rules, 1971, as expeditiously as possible and at any event of the matter, not later than four months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Rule issued is made absolute. The writ petition is accordingly allowed and disposed of in terms stated above. 8. However, in the circumstances of the case, no order is made as to costs.
-
1998 (2) TMI 131 - SUPREME COURT
What is the date for determination of the rate of duty in respect of the goods imported by the appellant?
Held that:- In the present case the date of entry inwards of the vessel as well as the date of presentation of the Bills of Entry were prior to March 1, 1987 when the duty payable on the goods was reduced. The Tribunal has, therefore, rightly held that duty was payable at 80%, the rate that was prevalent prior to the Notification dated March 1, 1987 and the benefit of the notification dated March 1, 1987, could not be extended to the appellant. In the circumstances, we do not find any merit in these appeals and the same are accordingly dismissed.
-
1998 (2) TMI 127 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
Writ jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... esult in the discharge of the show cause notice. In these circumstances we are of the opinion that it is not a fit case where this Court should interfere at this stage when the petitioner is only required to show cause. 3. Insofar as the contention that the petitioner has not been furnished with the necessary information and documents demanded is conceived, suffice it to say that on the date fixed for personal hearing the petitioner may show to the concerned authority the relevancy of the documents and the information sought for. We have no reason to believe that if the documents and informations are relevant and are not available with the petitioner as to why the authority would not accede, to the request of the petitioner. The question about the limitation can, as well, be canvassed before the concerned authority and at this stage it is not necessary for this Court to express any concluded opinion. 4. For what has been stated above, the writ petition is rejected in limine.
|
