|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 593 Records
-
1998 (11) TMI 231 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... er 27, which would prevail over sub-note (3) of Chapter 27. Also, the explanation of HSN notes in Chapter 29 in respect of chemically defined organic compound having a known structure (Hydroxybenzene in case of phenol), can be accepted as having persuasive value while interpreting the similar phrase used in Chapter Note 1(a) of Chapter 27. Accordingly, the resultant position under CTA, 1975 would be that phenol would be classifiable under Chapter 29.07, where percentage of purity of phenol exceeds 50 by weight and if commercially recongnisable. In the case of subject imports, ldquo phenols rdquo are in a pure state and hydrated for convenienece of transport and, therefore, would classify as pure phenol. 5. emsp In the face of the undisputed position regarding the purity of the imported goods, we agree with the lower appellate authority that the goods are classified as pure phenols under Chapter Heading 2907.11 of the CTA, 1975, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal.
-
1998 (11) TMI 217 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Import - Short landing ... ... ... ... ..... rted and on Board is the Ullage Report carried out by independent Surveyors, often countersigned by the Customs authorities, while the ship is yet to discharge the cargo on to the land mass. The Ullage Report thus is the primary and the basic document available to determine the actual quantity imported. We find that this view is supported also by the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Bombay High Court in the case of Shaw Wallace and Co. Ltd. supra as well as the decision of this very Tribunal in the case of Chowgule Brothers supra. 18. emsp As we have already held that there could be no legal distinction of the quantity ascertained either for the purposes of Section 12 or Section 116, in view of the aforesaid findings regarding the primacy of the Ullage Report for the purposes of determining the quantity of goods imported, we find there is no infirmity in the impugned Orders-in-Appeal which compels us to interfere with the same. Accordingly, these appeals are therefore dismissed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 209 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... the prayer of the appellant to change the classification and for a giving direction to release the goods without cutting into two pieces is beyond the scope of rectification application. It is also seen that the third Member had agreed with Member (Judicial), therefore it follows that there was unanimity in the view of the Members for release of goods after mutilation. In that view, of the matter, we hold that there is no mistake in the order. Hence, the application is rejected. Assent per S.K. Bhatnagar, Vice President . - I would only like to emphasise that the issue of classification of goods for Customs (including CVD purposes) is a matter different and distinguishable from the issues relating to compliance or otherwise with Import Policy. The final order has been passed in the light of majority decision consciously taken and there is no error apparent on the face of record therein. Hence, I agree with my learned colleague that the application is required to be rejected.
-
1998 (11) TMI 202 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... ariff, in other Custom Houses the same were classified as articles of plastic under Heading No. 3926.90. The circular states that seals/rings, if suitable for use solely or principally with hydraulic cylinders or other machines of Heading No. 84.12 will fall under Heading No. 8412.90, as parts of hydraulic cylinders, vide Section Note 2(b) to Section XVI. This Circular also deals with seals, which are made of rubber (which is not the subject matter of this issue). We also note that the authorities themselves have noted that earlier the goods were being cleared under Heading No. 8412.90 and that subsequent to the disputed period, they have been cleared under Heading No. 8412.90. In this view of the matter, having regard to the un-disputed position, that the seals are for use in the hydraulic cylinders and applying the circular of the Board, we hold that the goods in dispute fall for classification under Heading No. 8412.90 and set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
1998 (11) TMI 201 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Classification ... ... ... ... ..... er or not incorporating video tuner. We observe that the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order had found substantial force in the importer rsquo s contention that the goods imported could work only as accessories to the computer. The Commissioner (Appeals) also observed that sound cards cannot be classified under Heading 85.19 as they had no sound head or the video cards under Heading 85.21 as that covers items which reproduce sound and images on TV only. In respect of TV coder, the Commissioner (Appeals) gave her finding that it is mounted PCB which is different from video recording or reproducing apparatus. These findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) have not been rebutted by the Revenue in the appeal memorandum. We also observe that the Department itself has subsequently classified the imported items under Heading 8473.30. Accordingly, we find that there are no reasons to interfere with the impugned order and accordingly the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.
-
1998 (11) TMI 200 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Appeal - Delay in filing ... ... ... ... ..... n. Therefore, the delay of 20 days was not due to any negligence, but due to reason which are acceptable. Taking into consideration the judgment cited, we condone the delay of 20 days. Learned Advocate points out that the matter is required to be remanded to the Asst. Collector, as the order-in-original did not deal with the entire claim pertaining to two items. On perusal of the order we noticed from the preamble that the Asst. Collector has recorded the claim pertaining to two items imported by them. While in the order portion, he has dealt with seal kit rsquo only and there is no reason given while rejecting their claim that the seal kit was not correctly classifiable under Heading 9806.00. As the Asst. Commissioner, has not given reason for rejecting the same, therefore, we deem it proper to remand the case to the Asst. Commissioner to adjudicated the matter after rendering appellants an opportunity for hearing. Thus, the appeal is allowed by remand to Asst. Commissioner.
-
1998 (11) TMI 197 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... erified by Deptt., hence this point was beyond the show cause notice. 4. emsp On a careful consideration of the record and the allegation made in the show cause notice, it is seen that the allegation is based on the wrong declaration filed by mistake by the supplier. Subsequent evidence was produced to show that the manufacture of the goods had furnished correct value. The evidence produced has not been taking into consideration by the Commissioner, while deciding the case. Therefore, there is a non-application of mind while deciding the case. The further aspect pertaining to freight being HK 10485 was not brought out in the show cause notice. Therefore, the finding is beyond the allegation made in the show cause notice. In that view the matter, we set aside the impugned order and remand the case to the Commissioner for de novo consideration. The Commissioner, shall discuss the evidence, after giving hearing to the appellants, while passing a fresh order. Ordered accordingly.
-
1998 (11) TMI 196 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Cold rolled coils further worked out is covered by Entry against Serial No. 105 of Notification No. 11/97-Cus.
-
1998 (11) TMI 195 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... oes not amount to an offence and there is no evidence of any suppression or misstatement of fact or misdeclaration on the part of the appellants. 12. emsp The fact that for the purpose of precipitating barium sulphate, certain chemicals are required to be used does not, in any way, alter the basic fact that the final product with which we are concerned has not been shown to be distinct or chemically or commercially from Barytes which is admittedly covered by the exemption notification. 13. emsp Furthermore, precipitated forms of minerals have already been held to be covered by similar notifications in the case law cited before us and already discussed in the preceding paragraphs and therefore, legally also, the department rsquo s arguments do not hold water. 14. emsp In view of the above position, I agree with the conclusion of my learned Colleague that the impugned order is required to be set aside and appeal is required to be allowed, as already announced in the open Court.
-
1998 (11) TMI 187 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Confiscation of conveyance - Redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... fine should not be less than Rs. 75,000/- each. 8. emsp We have carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. While we agree that strictly in terms of the Section 115 of the Customs Act the buses are liable to confiscation, we are of the view that a nominal fine is liable to be paid by the owners of the buses because no knowledge on their part or their agents namely drivers and conductors of the buses have been brought forth in the impugned order. Having regard to the overall facts and circumstances of the case, while upholding the confiscation of the buses we give the appellants herein an option to redeem them on payment of fine of Rs. 30,000/- each. Impugned order is modified to the above extent so far as the appellants are concerned. 9. emsp Since the appellants have deposited Rs. 75,000/- each at the time of provisional release of the buses, the balance amount of security after appropriation of the aforesaid fine in lieu of the confiscation be refunded to them.
-
1998 (11) TMI 186 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Redemption fine and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... e letters have not been considered at all in the order impugned. (iv) In the order impugned, the penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- has been imposed only on the ground that ignorance of correct procedure cannot be accepted at this stage. We find that imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- merely on the grounds that there was ignorance of procedure on the part of the importer itself is not equitable. There should have been a clear order on which laws were infringed by the importer leading to imposition of penalty. This is not so. 10. emsp In view of the aforesaid findings, we set aside the order-in-original and remand the matter for de novo consideration afresh to the learned Commissioner of Customs. We also direct that while considering the matter de novo he should furnish the copies of the test reports relied upon and also give an opportunity to the importers of being heard. Even if a common order is passed in remand, all the Bills of Entries therein should be considered separately.
-
1998 (11) TMI 185 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... e anode stage had been reached. Since the contract was not for copper scrap, but for copper anodes, this reason does not hold good. The lower authority admittedly had not noticed any contemporaneous import of copper anodes at Chennai port at a higher price or otherwise. Therefore, the conclusions in order impugned have no infirmity on this count. (x) emsp that in view of these findings above, the transaction value as per the contract in force does not merit rejection under Rule 4 of the CV Rules as none of the conditions specified therein are attracted and also because no decisive evidence is led to prove fraud or even any special understanding between the two merely because the finally negotiated invoice price is lower that by itself does not prove any such special understanding. 10. emsp In view of these findings, we do no find anything in the appeal which compels us to interfere with the learned Commissioner rsquo s order impugned. The Revenue appeal is therefore rejected.
-
1998 (11) TMI 181 - CEGAT, MADRAS
Rectification of mistake ... ... ... ... ..... got merits and the mistake is apparent on record. Further, the respondents have stated that they did not receive the notice of hearing and hence it was an ex parte order. Their contention that had they received the notice of hearing, they would have sub- mitted their facts before the Bench is justifiable and requires to be considered. 4. emsp In that view of the matter, the Final Order No. 2623/96 dated 12-12-1996 is recalled by allowing this ROM application. 5. emsp We have heard both sides in respect of Revenue Appeal No. C/371/95 and we notice that the Tribunal by Final Order No. 821/94 dated 9-11-1994 in the importer rsquo s appeal has confirmed the order-in-original and held that the fine and penalty to the extent imposed is justifiable. As the Tribunal has already upheld the fine and penalty imposed in the matter, therefore question of ordering for enhancement in the Revenue rsquo s appeal does not arise and as such the Revenue appeal is dismissed. We order accordingly.
-
1998 (11) TMI 180 - CEGAT, MUMBAI
Import - Confiscated goods ... ... ... ... ..... e peculiar wording of the licence admittedly unusual, appellant could rightly claim import proportionately of any or all the three items. There was therefore no objection in principle to the import. 4. emsp We are told by the advocate for the appellant that the goods which were imported and ordered to be confiscated were not cleared and hence were sold by the department, and therefore the appeal is confined to return of the sale proceeds. The copy of the debit sheet of licence produced is unclear and it is not possible to say whether, when the import was made, there was sufficient balance. Therefore, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. The Assistant Commissioner shall determine whether the import was within the quantity and value restrictions contained in the licence when it was made, according to the ratio laid down and if so return to the appellant proceeds of the sale of the fibre less expenses thereof. In any event, he shall pass orders according to law.
-
1998 (11) TMI 178 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Valuation - Demand - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... ny material regarding the mode of packing and despatching goods. The allegation is only that they did not disclose recovery of slitting charges. Even on this aspect, we find that the Collector rsquo s factual finding that invoices mentioning the assessable value clearly showed that the respondents were recovering slitting charges from their customers and these invoices were verified by the department, has not been rebutted and both Review order and the Appeal Memorandum are silent on this point. Hence going by the factual finding of the Adjudicating authority, we agree with the respondents that disclosure of recovery of slitting charges on the invoices is sufficient disclosure and non-mention thereof in the relevant price list does not amount to suppression so as to warrant the invoking of the proviso to Section 11A of the Act. In the result, we hold that the entire demand is barred by limitation, uphold the impugned order for this reason and reject the appeal of the Revenue.
-
1998 (11) TMI 176 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit of penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ave carefully considered the pleas advanced from both sides. We are of the view that applicants do not have strong prima facie case. However, having regard to the over all facts and circumstances of the case including the financial condition of the various applicants, we direct them to pre-deposit the amounts shown against each of the applicants as follows 1. emsp Shri Kirpal Singh emsp Rs. One lakh only 2. emsp Shri Kamal Singh emsp Rs. Fifty thousand only 3. emsp Shri Sain Singh emsp ensp Rs. Thirty thousand only All these pre-deposits are required to be made by the applicants concerned within 8 weeks from today. On compliance of these deposits being made, the balance amount of penalty shall stand waived and Revenue shall be barred from recovery of the balance amount of penalty. In case of non-compliance, we make it clear the appeals shall be liable to be dismissed without any reference to the applicants. Matters to come up for ascertaining compliance on 19th January, 1999.
-
1998 (11) TMI 163 - CEGAT, MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... correctly enhanced to that of list price. 9. emsp We, therefore, do not see any merit in the appeal with regard, to the Diesel Engines which compels us to interfere with the Order impugned. 10. emsp As regards the value of spares is concerned, the impugned order has noted that the distributor/agent for the same in India is M/s. Premnath Motors, therefore loading of 18 on basis of imports through M/s. General Marketing and Manufacturing Co., through M/s. Terex Equipment Ltd. of U.K. would not be correct for imports from GM USA (different source). Since Premnath Motors charge 6.3 Commission (for their sale operations in India) which the appellants do not incur as direct importers, therefore applying the same principle as discussed above for Diesel Engines, we find that order impugned has very fairly restricted the enhancement of value to 6.3 . 11. emsp In view of the aforesaid analysis and findings, we do not find any infirmity in the order impugned and the appeal is dismissed.
-
1998 (11) TMI 139 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
Prosecution (Customs) - Revision against conviction ... ... ... ... ..... nstant case, there is a clear evidence to show that P.W. 1 entertained suspicion on the petitioner, while he entered into the Gents Toilet and when he came out of the toilet after some time, he was taken to the Intelligence Unit room where he was searched only on the basis of the said suspicion. During the personal search, it was found that a plastic bag was concealed inside his jatti. When the bag was searched, it was found to contain gold bars worth about Rs. 15 lakhs and odd with foreign marks. 12. In the light of these facts, I do not find any ground to accept the submission made by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the right of choosing the officer under whose presence the search was conducted under Section 102 of the Customs Act is mandatory as envisaged in sub-section (1) of Section 50 of the N.D.P.S. Act. 13. In the result, the revision is dismissed as devoid of merits confirming the conviction and sentence imposed on the petitioner by both the courts below.
-
1998 (11) TMI 138 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
... ...
... ... ..... d India on 15-10-1990 due to the war at Saudi Arabia, cannot be disputed, in which event, the only cause open for the petitioner is to entrust the matter to his friend or any other third party at Saudi Arabia, with a request to send his goods, which the petitioner had done so. As rightly pointed out by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petitioner is not expected to do more than what he did, by requesting his friends to send his goods to India. But, the respondents have not considered the case of the petitioner in the light of the explanation offered by him, and therefore, I am obliged to set aside the impugned orders of the authorities, quash the same, and allow the writ petition as prayed for. In the result, the Writ Petition is allowed. No costs. I direct the first respondent to pass appropriate orders within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of this order at the request of the petitioner for transfer of residence concession, as well as clearance of the goods.
-
1998 (11) TMI 133 - SC ORDER
Writ jurisdiction - Alternative remedy ... ... ... ... ..... lear that the observations of the High Court while disposing of the writ petition will not come in the way of the either side in getting the matter decided before the competent appellate authority in accordance with law. In short all the legally permissible contentions will be open to both the sides for consideration of the appellate authority. As the time for filing the appeal by now has expired, we grant six weeks time to the petitioner to file the aforesaid statutory appeal. 2.In view of the time granted to the petitioner to file statutory appeal status quo regarding recovery in question should be maintained for seven weeks. 3.We make it clear that grant of any further stay will depend upon the decision of the appellate authority and the present grant of status quo order will not come in the way of the appellate authority in passing appropriate orders on the stay petition if and when moved. 4.Subject to the aforesaid observations this Special Leave Petition is disposed of.
........
|
