|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 593 Records
-
1998 (11) TMI 315 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Smuggled goods ... ... ... ... ..... d fault with the defence. There is absolutely no evidence led by the Department in the case before us to show that the importers had indulged is unauthorised importation of the circles. 9. emsp Ld. JDR made much on the prime quality of the circles. We find that the among three experts namely, SAIL, SGS and Expert Appraiser of the Customs, there is a difference on this point. There is therefore not a certainty that the circles were of prime quality. Even otherwise as long as it is not established beyond doubt of their smuggled origin, the issue whether they are of prime or second quality does not assume material importers. 10. ensp At this stage on examination of the material before us, we find that the importers have made a very strong case in their favour. We, therefore, grant absolute stay and waiver of the sums demand and confirmed in the impugned order. 11. emsp At this stage the ld. JDR seeks a early hearing, we accordingly place the case for final hearing on 23-11-1998.
-
1998 (11) TMI 313 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation of goods ... ... ... ... ..... fiscation under clause (d) cannot be sustained. 4. emsp Confiscation under clause (m) of Section 111 has been ordered on the ground that the importer intentionally misdeclared the goods so as to wrongly avail of the exemption. Neither the bill of entry nor the invoice declare the goods to be of any kind of steel, or have other details of composition of the metal. The part of the appellant claiming the benefit of notification does not itself justify their being held to be misdeclared. What was exempted was goods made of iron and steel and the appellant could reasonably believe iron and steel included stainless steel. The Advocate for the appellant states that he does not seek benefit of the notification and appeal confined to confiscation and penalty. There was therefore no misdeclaration, confiscation under clause (m). Consequently confiscation and imposition of penalty cannot be sustained. 5. emsp Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside to that extent. Consequential relief.
-
1998 (11) TMI 304 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... rcumstantial evidence to show that the appellants were in the knowledge of the fact that the goods were smuggled. 6. emsp I have considered the submissions of both sides. The appellants have not claimed their ownership to the betel nuts seized and subsequently confiscated. Even the very fact that the goods were loaded by the transport company at the bottom of the truck along with the goods of Indian origin at the top, is not a sufficient evidence to prove their knowledge about the smuggled character of the betel nuts. Similarly, prima facie, I do not find anything in the statement of Shri Munna Prasad suggesting that he was in the knowledge of the smuggled character of the betel nuts in question. In view of these discussions, I allow the Stay Petitions unconditionally by dispensing with the condition of predeposit of penalties of Rs. 50,000.00 and Rs. 40,000.00 imposed respectively on the captioned applicants, and stay recovery of the same, during the pendency of the appeals.
-
1998 (11) TMI 299 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Import - Secondary seamless pipes ... ... ... ... ..... situation even after payment of fine and penalty. Accordingly, he prays for rejection of the appeal. 4. emsp I have considered the submissions made by both the sides. The appellants are not disputing that the goods being old and used require a licence for its importation and they have imported the goods without a valid licence and have rendered the same liable for confiscation. However, there is a prayer for reduction in redemption fine and penalty. From the order, I find that there is no discussion as regards the normal margin of profit in such type of goods. However, the Commissioner has referred to the demurrage incurred by the appellants. Taking into consideration the entire facts and the pleas made by both sides, I further reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 2.5 lakh to Rs. 1.75 lakh (rupees one lakh seventy five thousand only). As the penalty amount of Rs. 25,000/- is proper, no interference is called for. The appeal is otherwise rejected but for the above modification.
-
1998 (11) TMI 296 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Smuggling - Evidence - Confiscation of goods ... ... ... ... ..... e discretion should be so exercised having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, as the Addl. Commr. who passed the order of the confiscation undoubtedly had discretion to give an option to the appellant to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. I further observe that in a number of cases, it has been held that the discretion to be exercised under Section 125 is not the personal discretion of the authorities but has to be exercised in a fair and judicious manner. I feel that in the instant case, the Addl. Commissioner should have given an option to the appellant for release of the goods on payment of redemption fine. However, as the factors for deciding the quantum of redemption fine are not before me, I remand the matter to the Addl. Commissioner, Customs for fixing the amount of redemption fine after taking into account the market condition, margin of profit etc. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand to the Addl. Commissioner, Customs for this limited purpose.
-
1998 (11) TMI 286 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Trimming plant with accessories - Customs Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... ratio rsquo to the present appeals and examining the wording of the Notification and the fact situation, the finding of the Technical Member would be more appropriate. No doubt, as appellants had pointed out, the subse- quent Notification avoided reference to the crucial words and removed the disqualification but that would not affect the cases governed by the subject Notification. 37.In conclusion, I would like to say, following Mark Antony. Not that I agree with Judicial Member less. But that I agree with Technical Member more. 38. emsp The papers may be returned to the Original Bench for passing the final order in accordance with the majority view, which, in this case, is the one expressed by the Technical Member. Sd/- K. Sankararaman Member (T) Majority Order 39.In view of the majority order, both the appeals emsp are rejected. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp Sd/- ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp ensp Lajja Ram S.L. Peeran Member (T) Member (J)
-
1998 (11) TMI 285 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... (e.g., for industrial uses, for the ozonisation of premises). 55. emsp The imported I/P converters do not appear to be akin to any of the specific appliances and apparatus included within the scope of sub-heading No. 8543.80 of the Customs Tariff. From the function of the goods (pressure/ temperature control of liquid or gas flowing in the pipeline as per litera- ture and information on record) and the scheme of the Tariff, the goods in question - ITOPOIV - I/P Converters appear to be more appropriately classifiable under sub-heading No. 9032.89 of the Customs Tariff as proposed by the ld. Member (T). Accordingly, I agree with the order proposed by the Member (T). Sd/- Lajja Ram Member (T) 56.In view of the majority order, the impugned goods - Converters are held to be classifiable under Sub-heading No. 9032.89 of the Customs Tariff and as a result, the appeal is allowed. Ordered accordingly. Sd/- ensp ensp ensp ensp Sd/- ensp ensp Lajja Ram S.L. Peeran Member (T) Member (J)
-
1998 (11) TMI 282 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... ted to the customs at the time of export showed the year of manufacture to be 1960, 1961, 1962. There is nothing prima facie to connect the applicant with these years being shown. Whether his functioning as a motor vehicle inspector was contrary to the guidelines or his department would not be prima facie relevant for the purpose of imposition of penalty under Section 14 of the Act unless it can be shown that his acts or omissions were nothing and facilitated to the export. Prima facie neither of these requirements satisfied. 4. emsp The Commissioner himself records that Manubhai V. Makwana who is a head clerk and as an agent of R.T.O. did not abet this smuggling in any manner. There is no reason adduced by the Commissioner for imposing penalty on the other applicants, or anything that prima facie shows the applicants acts or omissions which contributed to smuggling. 5. emsp We therefore dispense with the deposit of penalties on each of the applicants and stay their recovery.
-
1998 (11) TMI 279 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Appeal - Show cause notice ... ... ... ... ..... h the Department. The said report also says that on further attempt made by Special Investigation Branch, no such firm could be found in the given address and as such, hearing notice could not be served. In the circumstances, he leaves the matter to the discretion of the Bench. 3. emsp We find that the Tribunal in the case of Collector of Customs, Madras v. Rajapalayam Mills Ltd. reported in 1998 (97) E.L.T. 180 (Tribunal) 1997 (22) RLT 565 (CEGAT) had dismissed the appeal filed by the Department on the ground of inability of the Department to serve the notice on the respondents. We find that in that case, there was no report from the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs about service of the notice on the respondents whereas in the instant case, there was a categorical report from the Department that the respondents are not in existence. As such we, by following the Tribunal rsquo s judgment in the case referred supra, dismiss the Revenue rsquo s appeal for non-prosecution.
-
1998 (11) TMI 277 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
... ...
... ... ..... tor of C. Ex. and Customs reported in 1993 (67) E.L.T. 20 (S.C.), he submits that it has been held that show cause notice under Section 124 survives even if the seized goods become liable to be returned to the person from whom seized and the notice for confiscation and penalty cannot be held to be illegal on this ground. 3. emsp I have gone through the decision of the Supreme Court and find sufficient force in the submission made by the ld. SDR. It has been laid down in the said judgment that Sections 110 and 124 are independent, distinct and exclusive of each other resulting in the survival of the proceedings under Section 124, even though the seized goods might have to be returned in terms of Section 110 of the Act after expiry of the permissible period of seizure. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). As the decision has not been given on merits, I remand the case to the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs for deciding the appeal on merits.
-
1998 (11) TMI 269 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... g regard to the fact that the currency was legally imported and declared on arrival to the Customs department be permitted to be re-exported subject to the permission of the Reserve Bank of India, or otherwise disposed of in accordance with that bank rsquo s directions on payment of fine of Rs. 9.00 lacs. 17. emsp Jatin Jhaveri has become liable to penalty for attempting to export currency without permission of the Reserve Bank. In deciding the quantum of penalty, we had noted that the currency was legally acquired and there is no allegation that it was smuggled. The penalty on him is therefore reduced from Rs. 10.00 lacs to Rs. 7.00 lacs. 18.Having regard to the role played by Ajit Dodia, we reduce the penalty on him from Rs. 2.00 lacs to Rs. 1.00 lac. 19.The luggage and other articles confiscated which have no commercial value may be returned to their owners on payment of fine and penalties as above. 20.Appeal C/577/95 allowed. Appeals C/537/95 and C/576/95 allowed in part.
-
1998 (11) TMI 266 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ment in which radar is used as an aid or tool for the performance of the specific function would be classified, not as a radar apparatus, but by reference to the function for which the radar is employed. Applying that principle, it would follow that the goods in question which are specifically designed for measuring the level of liquids rightly classifiable under Heading 90.26. This is also made clear by the explanatory notes for that heading at Page 1636 indicating level indicators for liquids functioning on ultrasound, to be classifiable under Heading 90.26. 4.The Commissioner has not considered these aspects in coming to the conclusion. He has been exclusively guided by the fact that the radar is employed in the equipment. His reasoning, which was adopted by the departmental representative is not acceptable in view of our earlier discussions. The goods merit classification under Heading 90.26 which is also more specific in scope. 5.Appeal allowed. Impugned order set aside.
-
1998 (11) TMI 262 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... r soothing the burning feeling on the skin after the shave is over and may contain aromatic substances having perfume etc. We find that the product is neither a pre-shave nor an after-shave preparation and the product is a Shaving Cream. The Department rsquo s contention that the product is not treated as a shaving cream nor known in the common parlance and trade as such, we have to face facts squarely in view of the continuous development of technology. Technological advancements brings into use new products day in and day out. With the advancement of technology, old concepts give way to newer ideas. The product is neither a pre-shave preparation nor and after-shave preparation. It is used as a shaving cream for normal shaving and, therefore, is a shaving cream, classifiable under EXIM Code 330710.01. We hold accordingly. 14 emsp In this view of the matter, we set aside the impugned order and allow the Appeal with consequential relief to the Appellant in accordance with law.
-
1998 (11) TMI 251 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Penalty for illegal export - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... learned Counsel has relied upon, indicating that Ashok Parekh emerges as the principal offender and not the appellant, and the further observation in the impugned order that though Ashok Parekh, S.R. Joshi and Hemant Joshi have all put the blame on the appellant, even they were not able to give any clue whether the appellant handled or dealt with any REP licenses issued in their name, or whether he has taken CCS benefit in their name, have to be considered as mitigating factors, is relevant, and due weightage has to be given to this aspect while determining the quantum of penalty on this appellant. It is also further noted in this context that the Collector has imposed a lesser penalty on Ashok Parekh. In these circumstances, therefore the penalty on the appellant is reduced from Rs. 10,00,000/- to Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only). The impugned order relating to this appellant is modified only to this extent it is otherwise upheld. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
-
1998 (11) TMI 250 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... deration. 19. emsp As regards the aspect pertaining to violation of import export policy, we notice that the Commissioner has not imposed any penalty on the appellants in view of the appellants having suffered demurrage. The aspect pertaining to violation or import and export policy is sustainable, once it is already held above as washing machine in SKD/CKD condition, because these are consumer goods import of which require licence, which has not been produced. Hence Collector has correctly confiscated the goods and imposed redemption fine. 20. emsp Since we have set aside the aspect pertaining to valuation and remanded the matter for reconsideration on the ground of misdeclaration of the goods and for not including the value of plastic pulley and housing parts, therefore, it is but proper that the aspect pertaining to levy of redemption fine is required to be re-examined along with aspect pertaining to valuation. The appeal is therefore, allowed by remand in the above terms.
-
1998 (11) TMI 246 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... respondent, the department is aggrieved that no penalty has been imposed. But as we have already seen in this case that policy regarding the imports by diamond exporter against such additional licence was a matter of dispute and had to be resolved at the Supreme Court level, and another aspect to be noted is that the adjudicating authority has maintained the level of redemption fine at about 100 of the CIF value of the goods. As we have already noted above, the Supreme Court in the Hindustan Steel case has laid down that the adjudicating authority could refrain from imposing penalty where the breach of law flowed from the bona fide belief regarding the validity of the action, and again as noted by us above, the bona fide belief was also strengthened by the department rsquo s in the clarifications in this case. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to hold that the impugned orders passed by the Collector of Customs, needs to be interfered with. The appeals are rejected.
-
1998 (11) TMI 242 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation of conveyance ... ... ... ... ..... n sold by the department in November 1997. The sale proceeds less expense would have to be returned to the appellant. The departmental representative contends that from this amount, a sum equal to the duty on the Isuzu engine which has been ordered to be paid by the Collector on the redemption amount be deducted. We are unable to see any significance in this argument. Diesel engines were not notified under Section 123 of the Act and there is nothing to show that the engine in question had been imported into India without payment of duty. Further, when the goods itself are not available for redemption, it is difficult to see how question of paying duty on the goods arises particularly when the vessel which the department valued at the time of seizure at Rs. 10.00 lacs has been sold by department for Rs. 1.60 lacs about 1/6th of the value. 6. emsp Appeal allowed. Order of confiscation of the vessel set aside. Sale proceeds less expenses of the sale be returned to the appellant.
-
1998 (11) TMI 240 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... be classified in their respective headings. Under Section Note 2(b), other parts being suitable for use solely or principally with a particular kind of machine or with a number of machines of the same heading were to be classified with the machine of that kind. 8. emsp In this case, the electric motor had not been presented for assessment separately. In the invoice, there is no separate reference to the motor. For the packing, the sets of motors (induction motor) had been packed separately but it does not mean that the electric motors had been imported separately. From the facts on record, it is clear that the electric motors were parts of the industrial sewing machines. As the parts are specifically included under Heading No. 84.52 of the Tariff even by virtue of Section Note referred to above, they were correctly classifiable under sub-heading 8452.90. In view of the above mentioned decision of the Tribunal, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 235 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Reference to High Court - Appeal - Aggrieved person ... ... ... ... ..... out the admissibility or relevance of the statement in question. The first question is therefore entirely misconceived 5. emsp The second question does not fare any better. It was not raised before the Tribunal by the departmental representative. The question of law, as framed, neither arises from the Tribunal rsquo s order nor has it considered by it and will not be a question arising out of this order, notwithstanding that it may arise on the finding given by it. (See CIT v. Scindia Navigation Co. Ltd. - 1961 (42) ITR 589 S.C. AIR 1961 S.C. 1633. Even going to the merits, it is not possible to hold that an order confiscating a substantial amount of currency seized from a person does not aggrieve him. Even if the money did not belong to him, he is, after all, responsible to the person who gave it to him. However, as we have held that the question does not arise out of the order, we do not consider it necessary to pursue this line of reasoning. 6. emsp Applications dismissed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 234 - CEGAT, CALCUTTA
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... of Shri Romen Singh, proprietor of M/s. V.G.R. Traders who claimed to have purchased the entire 101 pcs. from Shri Lokendra Singh. Further, discrepancy as regards time of release of goods, preparation of two challans and loading of the goods in the trucks also threw some doubts as regards the respondents rsquo claim of the purchase of the goods released on 15-5-1996. Failure of the consignees about the knowledge of the consignors rsquo firm is also a pointer towards the clandestine activities of the respondents. I agree with the ld. JDR rsquo s contention that the evidence in the shape of statements, challans, cash memo. of sale and purchase documents have not been considered and appreciated by the adjudicating authority before releasing the goods in favour of the respondents. Accordingly, I set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Commissioner, Customs for de novo adjudication in the light of the observations made above. The appeal is allowed by way of remand.
........
|
