|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 593 Records
-
1998 (12) TMI 129 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Remission of duty on damaged goods - Abatement of duty - Import ... ... ... ... ..... e seen to have been carried in LCL containers i.e. they occupied only a part of a container which might have container other goods. Hence the distinction made in the survey report between storage in a container and storage in the docks with regard to its damage requires a basis in fact, which is not shown to exist. The goods were lying in the premises of the appellant for about a month after clearance from the Customs and before the survey was carried out. The possibility that the damage occurred during this can also not be excluded. The survey report does not indicate the basis for the conclusion that damage was caused by corrosive material. The Section 22 lays the onus for establishing the claim for abatement on the person making the claim. It is he who must satisfy the Assistant Collector that the ingredients of the section have been met. This has not been done. I, there, am unable to interfere with the finding in the order impugned in the appeal. 4. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
1998 (12) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT
Whether having upheld the merits of his contention, we should now take away the benefit which the respondent has actually obtained under the orders of the Tribunal?
Held that:- We do not think that it would be fair to the respondent to take away the benefit which he has secured on the basis of the contentions which are accepted as justified. We, therefore, maintain the relief which has been granted to the respondent. But obviously after this lapse of time. Such relief cannot be granted to anybody else.
No effect on the right of the appellants to decide in accordance with law on the number of vacancies which are required to be filled up or not filled up, while maintaining the ratio of 50:50 between promotees and direct recruits.
-
1998 (11) TMI 690 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... B. Pattanaik, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 671 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... borne in mind by the ld. Lower Authority while levying the penalty, in the remand proceedings. 114. In this view of the matter, since it is held by the majority decision that the appellants are not entitled to the benefit of Notification and since it has also been held that the decision of the learned lower authority for the increase in the value of the goods imported from US 150 to 240 Per MT (imported acrylic scraps) has been rightly arrived at, therefore, the duty of ₹ 72,47,895/- as per the work sheet at Annexure II to Clause (f) of the impugned order is hereby confirmed. 115. In view of the majority decision that the acrylic scrap was used in the exported garbage bags, the licence in question is valid. 116. In the result, the impugned order is partly set aside and partly confirmed in terms of the above observation. 117. The appeals are disposed of in the above terms. Sd/- (V.K. Ashtana) Member (T) Sd/- (T.P. Nambiar) Member (J) Dated 27-2-1998
-
1998 (11) TMI 661 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... Rao, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 650 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ms Packaging case. He submits that the facts of their case are identical to the facts which came up for decision in the case of Systems Packaging case. He submits that the Tribunal has in these two decisions held that cutting of jumbo rolls into smaller rolls does not amount to manufacture. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that in the case of Relco Paper Products cited supra, the Tribunal no doubt had before it, the case pertaining to the period when old tariff was existing but what the Tribunal decided was about manufacture. We also note that in the case of Systems Packaging, identical facts were before the Tribunal when the Tribunal held that slitting of jumbo rolls into smaller rolls does not amount to manufacture. Following the decision in these two cases, we hold that slitting of jumbo rolls of thermal paper into smaller rolls does not amount to manufacture. In this view of the matter, the appeal of the Revenue is rejected.
-
1998 (11) TMI 611 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Confiscation - Absolute confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... ed to the export of foreign currency, which makes the same a prohibited item, which comes within the mischief of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, as held by the Honourable High Court of Calcutta in the case relied upon by the learned JDR. But the said Section gives a discretion as to giving an option to the accused, to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine, as may be thought fit. Thus keeping in view the overall facts and circumstances of the case as also the Tribunal rsquo s decision dated 4-11-1994, I allow the appellant to redeem the US 6,000.00 in question on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 1.50 lakh) (Rupees one hundred and fifty lakh) (sic) only and this option should be exercised by him within a period of four months from the date of this Order. The amount so returned shall be subject to the Circulars and law in force, as on the relevant date. The penalty of Rs. 10,000.00 imposed on the appellant is, however, confirmed. Appeal is partly allowed in above terms.
-
1998 (11) TMI 610 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), BOMBAY
Appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) - Limitation - Adjudication - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... et aside on the ground of long delay but may be on the ground of violation of Principles of Natural Justice occasioned by long delay. As such the order cannot be quashed on the ground of long delay. I further observe that the appellants have also contended that the impugned order ldquo has been passed in an ex parte manner which causes and deserves the impugned order to be quashed and/or set aside as the Principles of Natural Justice has been thoroughly violated by the impugned order rdquo and have urged to remand the case in the alternative. I agree with the aforesaid plea of the appellant and hold that the impugned order is not sustainable accordingly. 4. emsp In the light of the discussions above, I set aside the impugned order confirming the demand and allow the appeal by referring back the case to the Asstt. Commissioner for deciding it afresh in accordance with law after giving reasonable opportunity for hearing to the appellants and after considering their submissions.
-
1998 (11) TMI 588 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Imports for demonstration - Exemption subject to re-export ... ... ... ... ..... tor (Appeals) has confirmed the demand for duty in the order of the Assistant Collector on the ground that the photocopier was not exported. 3. emsp Advocate for the appellant contends that the fire which confined the photocopier was Act of God and hence duty was not payable. He further contends that no foreign exchange was involved the goods having been supplied free of charge by their manufacturer. 4. emsp We are unable to accept either of these contentions. It is difficult to concede that the fire was an Act of God. An Act of God is generally considered to be a natural event beyond the control of man and losses from which could not have been prevented or avoided by any reasonable amount of foresight. In any event, if the photocopier could not be exported appellant was required to pay the duty on it. The loss or gain of foreign exchange is irrelevant to this issue. Appellant was, therefore, liable for payment of duty. We see no reason to interfere. 5. emsp Appeal dismissed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 587 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Demand, Confiscation and Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... as to the importer or exporter. The instructions of department provide for selection of packages to be examined both by the appraising officer processing documents as well as by the examination officer in order to ensure that the packages are fairly tested represent alive. There is no material before us to conclude that the percentage sample did not represent the whole of the entire consignment of 325 M.T. of which quantity, 27 M.T. was found to be defective. We are not in a position to say anything, with regard to the remainder import of 148 M.T. which was not seized. The fact that goods declared by the importer as seconds were so accepted by the Custom House and cleared on examination, strongly supports the importer rsquo s case. Taken together, both that findings lead to the conclusion that the goods were not other than secondary goods. The confiscation, demand of duty and penalty are not sustainable. 5. emsp Appeals allowed. Impugned order set aside. Consequential relief.
-
1998 (11) TMI 586 - CEGAT, KOLKATA
Confiscation of goods - Smuggling ... ... ... ... ..... ss the border and the modus operandi adopted by the smugglers is to own licensed shops merely to enable them to deal in medicinal grocery or other items. There is no evidence on record to show that the appellant was, in fact, in the process of smuggling of these goods to Bangladesh. It is only on the basis of general trend in that area and on the basis of assumption that had the appellant not been intercepted by B.S.F. Officers, he would have smuggled the items across the border, the confiscation has been ordered by the authorities below. I find that the charge for attempt to export cannot be based on the basis of the type of observations the original authority had made. The appellant had produced the licence, the cash memos, showing legal purchase of the goods and was admittedly owning a shop in Village Srinagar. In view of all these admitted position, I set aside the impugned Order of confiscation of the goods and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
-
1998 (11) TMI 585 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Notification No. 91/89-Cus. - Evidence - Refund - Unjust enrichment - Remand ... ... ... ... ..... Appeals). In view of this, we agree with the submission of the SDR as to the admissibility of the said certificate at this stage. If the appellants had obtained the said certificates before the passing of the impugned order nothing prevented them from producing them before Collector (Appeals) in support of their claims. Having failed to do so, they cannot rely on the certificates at this stage. We therefore, do not take cognisance of the said certificates. 10. emsp Since appellants have not shown any other material to cast any doubt on the findings of the Collector (Appeals) on the items in dispute, we find no reason to interfere with the order. 11. emsp As regards the point relating to unjust enrichment, since the matter already stands referred to the authority below, we do not agree with the submission made by the appellants that this issue may be decided in the present Appeal. 12. emsp In view of the foregoing, this Appeal cannot succeed. The same is accordingly dismissed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 560 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Import licence - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... has not been able to explain. 9. emsp Clause (a) of Section 112 renders liable for penalty any person who does or omits to do any act which would render the goods liable to confiscation. It does not require that the person concerned must know or have reason to believe that the act or omission would render the goods liable to confiscation unlike clause (b) which makes such lsquo a requirement essential for imposing penalty. Therefore, strictly speaking Binani might be liable to penalty only on the ground of import of goods without a valid licence, and no further discussion would be necessary as to whether he was involved or not in obtaining the licence. However, in deciding the quantum of penalty, we have discussed in the preceding paragraphs. Taking these facts into account and also the facts that the goods have been ordered confiscation, we are of the view that, a penalty of Rs. 5.00 lacs is appropriate and reduce the penalty to Rs. 5.00 lacs. 9. emsp Appeal allowed in part.
-
1998 (11) TMI 369 - COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (APPEALS), CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... e goods, alleged differential duty has been collected from Suresh Autos in one case. It only shows that department itself is not convinced about the statement of Anil Kumar that he is the importer. Considering all these points, I agree that in the case of Suresh Autos and Preethi International, the value originally appraised is correct in law. 7. emsp As far as redemption fine and penalty, since I have indicated that the value need not be revised there is no need for enhancement of redemption fine and penalty. Further, I find that during the period under consideration, the Custom House was imposing similar percentage of redemption fine. The department has also not made a different case that the marginal profit is high, therefore, the redemption fine should have been revised. In the circumstances, the department rsquo s plea in this regard also fails. 8. emsp In the circumstances, the departmental appeal is rejected with consequential benefit to follow to the importer, if any.
-
1998 (11) TMI 353 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... size and comparable price. The material in the instant case, is Electrolytic Tinplate waste waste meaning thereby that the material is waste and, therefore, the quality of the material will differ from lot to lot. Since the quality will differ, therefore, the price will also differ. In the instant case, we find that at the very out set, the appellant has stated that the material was not free from rust and free from pinhole. No evidence has been placed on record by the Revenue to rebut this statement. Size also of the material was found different. Since, there are very material differences and since the material is second hand, therefore, the price variation is likely to be there. In this view of the matter, we find that the ld. Collector (Appeals) has rightly held that since that material was different, therefore, the transaction value as declared by the importers should be accepted. We uphold this view. In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal is rejected.
-
1998 (11) TMI 339 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Valuation - Contemporaneous import ... ... ... ... ..... therefore, to rely on the same evidence which is merely in the nature of quotation and not in the nature of invoices or assessed Bills of Entry is not contemporaneous in nature. Therefore, the impugned order is liable to be set aside on the ground that there is no evidence placed by the Commissioner in terms of the directions given by the CEGAT. It is also seen that the Commissioner has not given any findings on the evidence relied on by the appellants in the form of two Bills of Entry dated 12-8-1993 and 27-8-1993, which evidently as already noted by the CEGAT relate to goods of US origin for prices US 22 per piece and US 16 per piece. Therefore, accepting the evidence placed by the appellants and rejecting the evidence of Commissioner which is not contemporaneous in nature, we allow the appeal by accepting the pleas of the appellants and as there is no cause to revise the value in the matter, the order of confiscation and enhanced value is set aside by allowing the appeal.
-
1998 (11) TMI 334 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Valuation - Packing charges - Remand - Scope - Jurisdiction ... ... ... ... ..... the appellant in wholesale trade at the factory gate. 8. emsp Test is not the capability of the goods being sold in a minimum uniform packing. Test of capability has been specifically ruled out by the Apex Court in Ponds India (supra). Test is of generality of sales in particular packing in question. It may also be a fact in any particular case that a manufacturer-assessee is selling goods or offering sale of goods in several alternate packings such as gunny bags or carton or any other packing. In such a case yard-stick for generality of sales in each of the packings maybe different vis-a-vis each mode of packing. 9. emsp Determination of the question whether carton packing is one in which goods are generally sold in wholesale trade at the factory gate will have to be made by the Assistant Commissioner concerned in the facts and circumstances of the case before him and in the light of available case law without being influenced by the observations of this Bench on this issue.
-
1998 (11) TMI 328 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... cross examine witnesses on this issue. The applicant had admitted recovery in a statement which he did not retract for more than one month. He, however, makes plea of financial hardship. He owns no property and that his house has been extensively damaged for the reasons of cyclone. 3. emsp The other applicant has a strong prima facie case. The reason for imposition of penalty is that some goods such as air-conditioner and video cassette recorder were found in his house which were carried on the ship in question. We note, however, that he produced package of these materials. The absence of serial number on this package does not establish that he smuggled these goods. 4. emsp We, therefore, dispense with the deposit of penalty imposed on Osman Jusab Jasraya and direct Ibrahim Osman Jasraya to deposit within two months by instalment if necessary, Rs. 2 lakhs. Upon such deposit we waive deposit of remaining amount of penalty and stay its recovery. 5. emsp Compliance on 7-12-1998.
-
1998 (11) TMI 322 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Redemption fine - Quantification of ... ... ... ... ..... nquiries made by the Custom House which led to the calculations of the redemption fine imposed. Thereafter, the learned Commissioner shall give reasonable opportunity for hearing the importers afresh and also take into consideration any evidence which they may choose to lead in this regard. We also find that since the Custom House has allegedly not agreed to act upon the orders of their own Chief Commissioner regarding release of the consignment on Bank guarantee of 50 and personal bond of 50 as noted above, and since in the meantime the goods unlikely to deteriorate further, therefore we direct the learned Commissioner to complete the de novo adjudication proceedings within a period of two weeks from the date of the receipt of this order. Registry to issue the order dasti rsquo (By Hand) in view of the urgency involved. Miscellaneous application for early hearing is accordingly allowed and the Stay application disposed of as infructuous. The appeals allowed by way of remand.
-
1998 (11) TMI 318 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Re-adjudication on remand ... ... ... ... ..... Supreme Court rsquo s judgment is well appropriate. Accordingly, in view of this, we set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter to the adjudicating authority for de novo decision with the direction that the adjudicating authority will allow the appellants to cross-examine Shri Basu, if possible and will allow them an opportunity to present their case on the basis of the evidence already on record. If on appreciation of the evidence, the adjudicating authority comes to a decision against the appellants, the diesel engines in question would not be ordered to be confiscated absolutely but an option shall be given to the appellants to redeem the same on redemption fine which shall not be more than the quantum of the redemption fine adjudicated by the Commissioner vide his earlier order. We make it clear that the matter is being remanded only on these two limited issues and no opinion on the merits of the case is being expressed. The appeals are allowed by way of remand.
........
|
