|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 593 Records
-
1998 (12) TMI 219 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... n his behalf by his agent. The slot charterer himself is neither the master nor his agent. If the slot charterer failed to intimate the master the details of the containers, that is a matter between the slot charterer and the master of the ship. In the absence of provisions in this regard it is not a matter concerning the customs department. Much less is the customs department concerned with the activity of the local agent of the charterer. Further the manifest itself was permitted to be amended and the cargo cleared. The contention of the Departmental Representative that the penalty has been imposed for the reason that the slot charterer omitted to supply the particulars to the master of the vessel hardly calls for an answer. It is in any case not explained why the local agent was subjected to penalty when the slot charterer himself was not penalised. We find that the penalty is without basis whatsoever. 4. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside. Consequential relief.
-
1998 (12) TMI 210 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay of suspension of licence of Customs House Agent - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... , 1982 also a provision exists in the form of Rule 41 whereby the Tribunal is competent to make order or give appropriate directions to prevent abuse of its process or to secure ends of justice. 7. emsp On reading the order we find that there was considerable time gap between detection of excess valuation and the need to take ldquo immediate action rdquo . From the narration we are not able to co-relate the action on part of the exporter in over-invoicing the goods to any action taken by the present applicant. Thus, on the face of the order also we find no reason to resort to the extra-ordinary action provided for in the said Regulation. 8. emsp In view of our finding we stay the operation of the order. The applicant shall be permitted to continue their business as Custom House Agents during the pendency of the appeal. 9. emsp We make it clear that this order would not operate as a bar for the Commissioner to proceed with the enquiries contemplated under the same Regulations.
-
1998 (12) TMI 209 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Import - Advance licence ... ... ... ... ..... . Ltd. dealt with whether cashew shells used in kiln were consumed in the manufacture of other goods. In the Kerala General Sales Tax Act, 1963, each of these expressions had a different significance and scope of the expression which we are concerned with. These judgments are not, therefore, relevant to the present case. It would also be not correct to say that the Supreme Court in Oblum Electrical Industries Pvt. Ltd. has decided upon the eligibility of the goods considered before it to the Notification without taking note of the distinction between the two phrases. The reading of the judgment immediately shows that the Supreme Court did note of the distinction between the two phrases. 11. emsp The contention that the Supreme Court did not have occasion to consider as to the requirement of condition (d) of the Notification is not relevant. The notice did not allege a contravention of this condition. 12. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside with consequential relief.
-
1998 (12) TMI 207 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI.
Confiscation of gold, silver and conveyance ... ... ... ... ..... sent case. Lower appellate authorities observation that the said Circular of the Board has no force inasmuch as the Customs Act, 1962 gives powers to the Inspector of Customs to effect the seizure of silver which is liable to confiscation, in my view, is a statement which cannot be countenanced. C.B.E. and C. is the Chief Customs authority administering the Customs Act. Directions issued by it are binding on all subordinate authorities except the appellate authority under the Act. It will cause chaos in administration of the Customs Act if some officers at enforcement level obey the instructions of the Board and some do not. 12. emsp Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case I hold that the goods are not at all liable to confiscation. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. Gold, silver and car are ordered to be released. Penalty imposed on the appellants herein are set aside. In short appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
1998 (12) TMI 206 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Seizure of Indian currency ... ... ... ... ..... pport of his submissions he relied upon the following decisions - (1) emsp Tarsem Kumar v C.I.T. and Ors. - I.T. 1974 ITR (94) 567 (P and H) (2) emsp C.I.T. v Tarsem Kumar - 1986 (26) E.L.T. 10 (S.C.) AIR 1986 (S.C.) 1477 2. Shri R.K. Roy, ld. JDR argued in support of the directions given by the Commissioner (Appeals). 3. emsp Vide the judgments relied upon by the ld. Advocate it has been laid down that the Customs authorities are bound to return the Indian Currency to the same person from whom it was seized, once the proceedings against the accused person are dropped. Any sebsequent action by the Income Tax authorities in respect of the same money was unwarranted as laid down in the judgments relied upon by the ld. Advocate. Accordingly, while upholding the order of release of Indian Currency and setting aside the adjudicating Order by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals). I set aside the last paragraph of the Order reproduced above. 4. Appeal is disposed of in above terms.
-
1998 (12) TMI 201 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Adjudication - Jurisdiction - Smuggling ... ... ... ... ..... om whom the gold was seized. The presence of foreign markings constituted sufficient material to entertain reasonable belief in the minds of seizing officer that the gold was of foreign origin. The provisions of 123 were therefore rightly invoked. In the event, the appellant has to discharge the burden of proving that gold was not smuggled. Since he has not been able to discharge that burden, presumption which was raised that the gold was foreign origin has been rightly confirmed. 6.The last argument is that the penalty imposed is a composite penalty and was not permissible. This point has to be accepted. The Additional Collector erred in imposing penalty taking note of the fact that Gold (Control) Act has been repealed and the gold has been absolutely confiscated. It would be appropriate to set aside the penalty imposed under the Gold (Control) Act and to confirm Rs. 5,000/- as penalty imposed under the Customs Act. 7.Appeal G/1/98 allowed in part. Appeal C/317/92 dismissed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 196 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Import of car ... ... ... ... ..... on of the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be sustained. At the same time, however, we note that the car had run more than 7,000 kms. in the two years, in which it was in the importer rsquo s possession, about 300 kms. per month. This shows the evidence of use of the car. We do not find unreasonable, the contention raised on behalf of the importer that he was provided transportation by his employer for his work, and therefore, used the car sparingly, by making use of the services of his friends to drive the car on the occasions when he used it. Such instances of friends driving another rsquo s car are not unknown or unacceptable. It is not as if this car has been purchased and stored merely for taking the benefit of the public notice. It has been put to use, even if sparingly. The public notice does not prescribe a minimum extent of use and only says that the car must have been in use of the importer. We are satisfied that this requirement has been fulfilled. 4.Appeal dismissed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 192 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... eligible for the concessional rate of duty. The ld. Collector of Customs had extended the benefit as applicable to light sensitive time switches for street light controls. It is clear from the Order of the Asstt. Collector of Customs that the goods were meant for use along with a Pace Maker. This has also been indicated in the Invoice where the goods had been described as Electronic Items - Programmers for Pace-makers Type LS38 3 x 16 Amps 110/220 Volts. In the bill of entry, asse- ssable value of Rs. 1,00,855/- has been given for 582 pieces weighing 754 kgs. 6. emsp From the product description and from the discussion on record, we do not consider that the view taken by the ld. Collector that the goods were light sensitive for street light controls was correct. 7. emsp After taking into account the relevant facts and considerations, we do not agree with the view taken by the ld. Collector of Customs (Appeals). As a result, both these appeals are allowed. Ordered accordingly.
-
1998 (12) TMI 185 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... he State Government purported to act under Rule 4(3) of the Rules in issuing the impugned notification is of no consequence. When the source of power can be validly traced then the State action in the exercise of such power cannot be struck down on the ground that it was levelled under a different position rdquo . The Tribunal following the said judgment upheld the levy of penalty. The judgment of Agarwal Udyog rendered in 1994 (72) E.L.T. 133 also held that as long as reading of the order makes it clear as to which sub-clause of Section 112 is relied upon for the purpose of imposition of penalty specific non-mention will not be fatal to the case of the department. 5. emsp In the instant case I am of the view that the penalty can be invoked in this case under Section 112(b) of the Act. As long as this can be identified easily the impugned order cannot be vitiated. Hence, in my view the argument of the learned Counsel Shri Jerry Lewis cannot be accepted. Appeals are dismissed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 183 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... s net price to the wholsale dealer was not feasible because the certificate dated 23-9-1994 was issued from the manufacturers rsquo Marketing Department fro Middle East and Africa indicating gross FOB price to the dealer, intimated by the manufacturer is not net price to wholesale dealer. He therefore, submits that the Department went by the invoice price and this is permissible and there is no reason to hold that the invoice price cannot be accepted. 3. emsp On consideration of submissions from both the sides, we agree with the ld. JDR that it is not possible to accept the manufacturer rsquo s price as can be seen from the Certificate, as a basis for valuation, in view of the reasons contained in the adjudication order and that the Department had rightly accepted the invoice price for the basis of assessments. In this view of the matter, we hold that there is no warrant to interfere with the order of the lower appellate authority and uphold the same. The appeal is rejected.
-
1998 (12) TMI 181 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Re-export - Option not availble to smuggled goods ... ... ... ... ..... emption fine to be Rs. 2.50 lakhs in the case of gold imported by Geeta Maciejovsky and Rs. 6 lakhs in the case of gold imported by Mohini Bhatia. On payment of such fine within 3 months from the receipt of this order the gold may be cleared for home consumption. We have not acceded to the request made for re-export of the gold. In view of the discussions as to the circumstances in which the gold was attempted to be cleared without declaration, and in the case of Mohini Bhatia actually so cleared, we do not think the appellants should be put in the advantageous position of starting at square one. The conduct of the appellants does not justify grant of re-export. 17. emsp We consider that the penalty imposed of Rs. 6 lakhs and Rs. 2 lakhs on Mohini Bhatia and Geeta Maciejovsky are in commensurate with the gravity of the offence committed by each of them and the role played by each of them and the value of the gold seized. 18. emsp Appeals allowed in part. Consequential relief.
-
1998 (12) TMI 173 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Import Trade Control ... ... ... ... ..... problem and destruction of his family house, shooting of his father and killing in riot in Delhi in 1984, loosing everything in life, which naturally forces any man to set right his life first, and then look to the other things. This cannot be termed as either negligence or unconcerned conduct with the imported car worth about Rs. 45,000/-. The reasoning in the impugned order both on facts and law is not sound. The appellant has a firm ground in support of his case that there was no idea to sell the car. CCP was in his favour. Show cause notice and adjudication orders are not shown to have been served. Even his letter is not replied. So under these circumstances there are sufficient and satisfactory grounds to set aside the impugned order. Point raised is answered in the affirmative. We pass the following order - ORDER 10. emsp For the reasons indicated above, impugned order is set aside against the appellant. His appeal is allowed with consequential relief according to law.
-
1998 (12) TMI 172 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Redemption fine and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... orter. He has ordered confiscation of the goods with an option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 10.00 lakhs and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1.00 lakh. 3. In the background of the observation of the Collector, we agree with the departmental representative that there is merit in the submission in the department rsquo s appeal that penalty and redemption fine are incommensurate with the gravity of the misdeclaration and the duty involved. The department rsquo s appeal does not indicate any margin of profit or other factors which would be the relevant criterion for determining the fine and penalty. In these circumstances, we accept the suggestion of the departmental representative that 25 ought to be the reasonable figure for redemption fine. The knowing act of misdeclaration by the importer warrants a deterrent amount of penalty. 4. emsp Accordingly, we modify the Collector rsquo s order by determining the redemption fine to be Rs. 18.00 lakhs and penalty to Rs. 4.00 lakhs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 168 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Redemption fine - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... 10. emsp It is true that the concerned Section permits imposition of penalty upto 5 times the value of the goods involved. Seldom, if ever, is this figure reached. The quantum of penalty varies depending upon the various ingredients present in the unlawful importation. So at all times, these ingredients have to be spelt out so as to indicate the adequacy or otherwise of the quantum of penalty. In view of the lack of these inputs, it cannot be said the present imposition was inadequate. 11. emsp Although it is not a part of record, I also take cognizance of Shri Harbans Singh, ld. Advocate rsquo s submission that the department has not thought much of this offence inasmuch as his clients were not prosecuted. 12. emsp On consideration of the grounds of appeal, the reasoning given in the impugned order and my discussion above, I find that the Revenue have not made a case for merit in interference with the impugned order. These appeals from the Revenue, therefore, are dismissed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 167 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... not justified under the Customs Valuation Rules. We also observe that sub-rule (3) of Rule 5 provides that if more than one transaction value of identical goods is found, the lowest of such value shall be used to determine the value of imported goods. The learned Counsel has also rightly contended that the computer print out of the Bombay Customs House also showed the price of Gem brand staple pin No. 10 made in Korea at the price of U.S. 0.5427 per dozen boxes which was less than the price declared by them and according to Rule 5(3), the lowest value of identical goods should have been taken by the Department for determination of the value of the imported goods. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order enhancing the value of the imported goods. As the enhancement of the value has not been upheld, consequentially the order passed by the Additional Collector imposing penalty and fine becomes inoperable and as such is also set aside. Accordingly both the appeals are allowed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 166 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... mount received by the applicant would be Rs. 30 lakhs. We have to consider in addition receipt of normal agency charges from exporters and importers. There is no explanation as to disposition of amounts so received. We therefore do not find any basis for financial hardship. 10. emsp We, however, noted that the applicant has already deposited Rs. 25 lakhs in pursuance to the High Court order pending adjudication regarding which the Commissioner has passed another orders. We are of the view that no further deposit in addition to the Rs. 75 lakhs already deposited by Vas Synthetics is required to be made, and dispense with the deposit of remaining duty and stay its recovery. We direct, against the penalties imposed, applicants Arun Mehra and Ashok Pokharkar to deposit Rs. 75 lakhs and Rs. 13 lakhs respectively within 2 months from the date of pronouncement of this order. On such deposit we waive deposit of the remaining amount and stay recovery. 11. emsp Compliance on 18-2-1999.
-
1998 (12) TMI 161 - SUPREME COURT
Ship for breaking up ... ... ... ... ..... xplaining Light Displacement Tonnage. We fail to see how these throw any light on the present case. 5. Entry 89.08 has been subsequently amended w.e.f. 29-2-1988. As a result, Note 2 hase been introduced in Chapter 89. Note 2 reads as under ldquo 2. In Heading No. 89.08 rdquo Light Displacement Tonnage (LDT) means LDT in metric tonnes as per Builder rsquo s Registered LDT referred to in the Stability Book or the builder rsquo s certificate at the time of initial commissioning of the vessel or the floating structure Provided that in case of any change in the LDT, the highest of the LDT indicated in any of the documents referred to above shall be taken for the purpose of levy of duty. 6.The Tribunal has rightly held that since Chapter Note 2 was incorporated only w.e.f. 29-2-1988, it cannot affect the present case where the ship was imported prior to the addition of the said Note in Chapter 89. 7.The appeal is, therefore, dismissed. There will, however, be no order as to costs.
-
1998 (12) TMI 159 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... m as sub-assemblies. The department has relied upon the definition of component in para 7(10) of the Import Export Policy according to which ldquo Component rdquo means one of the parts of a sub-assembly or assembly of which a manufactured product is made up and into which it may be resolved and component includes an accessory attachment. The learned Advocate has contended that components and sub-assemblies are not mutually exclusive. All that is necessary to make an article, a component part is that it goes into composition of another article. If an article is an element in the composition of another article made out of it, such an article may well be described as a component part of the other article. It is not in dispute that the goods imported are required goods for the assembly of photocopier machine and accordingly the goods may be described as a component of the photocopier. In view of these facts and circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1998 (12) TMI 150 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... on the appeal against their order has not stayed operation. We thus hold that the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to deny the refund by ignoring this judgment is not sustainable. 5. emsp Departmental Representative points out that the Commissioner (Appeals) order is silent on the finding of the Assistant Commissioner that the goods are not shown to have been captively consumed in the appellant rsquo s factory. Advocate for the appellant undertakes to produce sufficient evidence within the two months from the receipt of this order to the Commissioner (Appeals) in support of this contention that the goods have been so used. 6. emsp Accordingly we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Commissioner shall, by applying the principles of Solar Pesticides v. Union of India decided the eligibility to the appellant refund, according to law, after considering the evidence that will be produced before him as they, regarding use of the goods and manufacture of fertilizer.
-
1998 (12) TMI 131 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation of goods ... ... ... ... ..... made out by the appellant at the time of adjudication of the case. Therefore, these pleas of fact now taken by him before the lower appellate authority were rightly discarded by the said authority. The adjudication was made by the Assistant Commissioner on the basis of the confessional statement of the appellant along with the statements of the three occupants of the jeep. The four statements corroborate one another which clearly indicate that the liquor was attempted to be exported to Pakistan. In the face of the evidence on record and in the absence of any reply from the appellant, the conclusion arrived at by the original authority as also by the lower appellate authority cannot be challenged at this stage. Statements also bring out the fact that the appellant was concerned in attempting to export the goods. Penalty has also, therefore, been rightly imposed on the appellant. 3.1 emsp In view of the foregoing discussion. I do not find any substance in the appeal before me.
........
|
