Home Case Index All Cases Customs 1998 1998 1998 (2) Customs - 1998 (2) 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 41 to 43 of 43 Records

• 1998 (2) TMI 126 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT DELHI
  

  Inquiry and Investigation - Summons - Testimonial compulsion

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... connection with the smuggling of goods. The person so summoned is bound to attend and to state the truth upon any subject respecting which he is examined or makes statements and produces such documents and other things as may be required. Therefore, the impugned summons cannot be set aside. The petitioner is required to appear and answer such questions and give such information regarding himself which do not tend to incriminate him. In our view the petitioner is also not entitled to assistance of a Lawyer at the time of recording of his statement under Section 108 of the Customs Act. 11. Thus, the petition is partly allowed and it is declared that the petitioner is a person accused of an offence within the meaning of Article 20(3) but he is bound to appear before the concerned officer under Section 108 of the Customs Act to answer such questions which do not tend to incriminate him. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms leaving parties to bear their own costs.

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 125 - HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
  

  Search and seizure (Customs)

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... s that I make one way or the other with regard to the sufficiency of the reasons or the fact whether the reasons were wholly relevant or not, might prejudice the outcome of the pending proceedings or may tend to influence one way or the other the decision making process in such proceedings. Any such comment may also adversely effect the interests of the parties or either of them. 7.I am however convinced that the requirements as contained in and prescribed under Section 105 of the Customs Act having been fully satisfied, this Court cannot issue the declaration that the search and seizure was illegal or contrary to Section 105 of the Customs Act. No other relief was claimed during the course of hearing of the petition nor was any other point urged, except with regard to the legality of the search and seizure in relation to the applicability of Section 105 of the Customs Act. 8.For the foregoing reasons therefore the writ petition is dismissed but without any order as to costs.

  ---

• 1998 (2) TMI 124 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Whether there was undervaluation for the purpose of levy of Customs duty under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the invoices of the various consignments of ball bearings which were imported by the appellants?

  Held that:- The documents seized during the search and seizure that were produced by the appellants before the Customs authorities (genuineness of which was accepted by the Addl. Collector of Customs) show that apart from Mirah Exports a number of other importers, namely, Skefko, Amul Engg., Krishna Engg. Works, Delhi, Jayaveer Forge, Davangere, Ajay Trading Co., Delhi, Ramgopal Lachmi Narayan, Bombay, Sanmukh Engineering Industries, etc. had also imported comparable quantities of similar bearings at the same or lesser prices as that of Mirah Exports and that discount from 50% to 70% on the list prices was the normal invoice price for a number of unconnected importers during the period. The Collector of Customs, while passing the orders dated December 5, 1986 and March 20, 1987 and the Tribunal in the impugned judgment have not taken note of the said documents and the fact that the importers had been given 50% to 70% discount on the prices indicated in the list price.

  Thus the appeals are allowed, the impugned judgment of the Tribunal is set aside and it is held that the invoice prices as mentioned in the invoices for the imports of ball bearings by the appellants shall be treated as the value for the purpose of assessment of customs duty under Section 14 of the Act.

  ---

123