|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 120 of 1198 Records
-
2009 (11) TMI 752 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... ial authority to impose a penalty on a person who is found to have committed or omitted something which commission or omission renders the goods liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. In the present case, the ld. Commissioner found that Shri Kamal Agarwal presented himself as the face of the assessee-company and was managing its affairs and therefore liable to be penalised under Section 112. We are afraid, such findings are not at all relevant to Section 112. Though the show-cause notice alleged to the effect that Shri Kamal Agarwal had, by his actions/inactions, rendered the goods liable to confiscation, the adjudicating authority did not record any finding to this effect. Therefore, the penalty imposed on Shri Kamal Agarwal under Section 112 has to be set aside for want of supporting finding. It is ordered accordingly. 9. In the result, Appeal No. C/224/02 is rejected Appeal No. C/426/06 is partly allowed and Appeal No. C/427/06 is allowed. (Dictated in Court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 745 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Violation of import conditions - The case of the Revenue is that during the material period the appellants received non-duty paid bunkers for fishing trawlers which were deployed as chase boats/guard vessels in connection with mineral oil extraction or production. These vessels were on coastal run using the duty free bunkers and plied in the EEZ where the provisions of Customs Act operated in terms of the N/N. 21/2002. Such use of imported HSD was exempt from payment of customs duty only if the DGHC had issued Essentiality Certificate in respect of such fuel. The appellants had not obtained such Essentiality Certificate - Held that: - The fuel supply for vessels in connection with offshore oil exploration is exempt by N/N. 21/2002-Cus. dated 1-3-02. Vide Sl. No. 214, 216 and 217 of this notification, goods supplied in connection with petroleum operations undertaken under various contracts are exempt from customs duty.
The Commissioner found that the fishing, trawlers had received bunkers and failed to follow the procedure prescribed in Public Notice No. 172/2002 by their not reporting to the authorities at Visakhapatnam and renewing the fishing passes. The offending transactions took place at Visakhapatnam Port. These vessels had not reported the balance quantity of duty free bunkers that remained onboard the vessels when they called at the Visakhapatnam Port. Therefore, Commissioner, Visakhatpanm had jurisdiction to decide the dispute.
The offence found against the appellants is that it imported HSD and consumed on coastal run without following any statutory formalities. The appellants did not subject itself to the jurisdiction of the customs as regards the impugned bunkers as prescribed in the Public Notice issued by the Commissioner of Customs. HSD imported was consumed in plying chase boats without fulfilling the conditions for any exemption.
Matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to readjudicate the issue - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2009 (11) TMI 744 - COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE (APPEALS), AHMEDABAD-III
... ...
... ... ..... nt. Even otherwise, the condition prescribed in Board rsquo s Circular referred to above, which necessitated the appellant to obtain a disclaimer certificate not only from SEZ unit but from Specified officer in SEZ also, had delayed the appellant in presenting the required documents before the jurisdictional Central Excise officer in support of their claim which was beyond their control. 16. Since the drawback claim was rejected on the basis of limitation under Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 which is now found not sustainable, I hold that the appellant is eligible for drawback and hence the appeal is allowed. However I find that as per Rule 30(8) of SEZ Rules, 2006 drawback is admissible provided payments for the supply are made from the foreign currency account of the unit. Therefore drawback shall be admissible subject to fulfilment of the said condition. ORDER 17. In view of the above findings, I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
2009 (11) TMI 743 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... ehicle. In such a situation, it cannot be treated as a case of transportation without the knowledge of the owner of the vehicle. The confiscation of the vehicle therefore, deserves to be upheld. However, considering the value of goods involved, and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, some leniency may be justified in matters relating to redemption fine on the truck and penalties imposed on Shri Major Singh and Shri Inderpreet Singh. 7. In the light of the above, the appeals are disposed of as follows - (a) The appeal of Smt. Simran Kaur is partly allowed by setting aside the penalty of Rs. 90,000/- imposed on her. The redemption fine imposed on the truck is reduced to Rs. 75,000/- (Rupees Seventy five thousands only) (b) The penalty imposed on Shri Major Singh is reduced from Rs. One lakh to Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty five thousands only) (c) The penalty imposed on Shri Inderpreet Singh is reduced from Rs. 1,50,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only).
-
2009 (11) TMI 742 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... rted and indigenous raw material. We find that the lower adjudicating authority also has simply relied upon the show cause notice and the finding was not based on any evidence. While it has to be accepted that there cannot be any evidence with regard to the sales of grey fabrics in small quantities in the open market without any issue of invoice and without payment of duty, 100 EOU cannot have imported the goods without proper documents. Further, for demand of customs duty on the raw material, it is necessary to prove that the same were imported. In absence of any proof that the same were imported, the customs duty could not have been demanded. We also agree with the learned advocate that the decisions cited by him in support of his contention that what was leviable was Central Excise duty in respect of the goods obtained from 100 EOU and other local sources and not Customs duty. 5. In view of the above, the appeals are allowed with consequential relief. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 741 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... eclared description was LWC paper less than 70 GSM, there is mis-declaration of description in the bill of entry and in view of this, the provisions of Section 111(m) regarding of confiscation of goods and of Section 112(a) for imposition of penalty on the importer and indenter would be attracted. However, looking to the fact that the importers are not a trader but are actual user, who had imported this paper for magazine for students preparing for competitive examination and also the fact that this Department has not produced any calculation regarding margin of profit in respect of imported goods, I am of the view that the redemption fine and penalty are on higher side. Accordingly, the redemption fine in lieu of confiscation is reduced to Rs. 50,000/- and the penalties on M/s. Kalp Times and M/s. K. Shyam International are reduced to Rs. 15,000/- each. The impugned order stands modified as above. The appeals are partially allowed. (Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 738 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... g scrap stands confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) has upheld the confiscation of heavy melting scrap and also held that the importer was liable to penalty. He has also held that there was no mens rea on the part of the importer in relation to the import of the consignment. He has reduced the redemption fine taking into consideration that the war materials found the consignment of HMS scrap were damaged, used and rusted bomb shells and accordingly not usable as such. The redemption fine relates to HMS which is not prohibited. In view of the clear finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that there was no evidence to suggest mens rea, the leniency shown by the Commissioner by reducing the redemption fine and penalty cannot be treated as unreasonable. 6. There are no valid reasons adduced to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 7. Appeal by the Department is, therefore, rejected. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 732 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... dings. In these circumstances, we do not find any merit in the impugned Order-in-Appeal. We allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any. rdquo It is undisputed in this case before us that the appellant had permission from DGFT under a license, to import all these disputed items. 6. emsp It can be seen that in an identical issue, where identical goods were- imported, has already been settled in favour of the assessee in the cases as cited. Respectfully following the same, we hold that the impugned order which confirms the demand of duty of the customs forgone by the Revenue (as challenged by the assessee in the cross-objection) is liable to be set aside and we do so and also hold that the goods are not liable for confiscation. Since there is no demand of duty, the question of penalty does not arise. 7. emsp In sum, assessee rsquo s cross-objection is allowed and Revenue rsquo s appeal is rejected. (Operative portion of this order pronounced on conclusion of the hearing)
-
2009 (11) TMI 726 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Confiscation - mis-declaration of value - violation of Import Export Policy - Held that: - In this case the Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the adjudication order whereby the value of imported goods were enhanced and were held to be liable for confiscation being prohibited goods. The Commissioner (Appeals) has not remanded the matter to the adjudicating Authority. The present impugned order is in favor of the Appellants. Hence the Appellants cannot be held to be aggrieved person - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2009 (11) TMI 724 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Conversion of shipping bills - DEPB/DEEC shipping bills into cum-drawback scheme - right of amendment u/s 149 of the CA, 1962 - Held that: - importer/exporter cannot claim amendment as a matter of right. The words used namely, “proper officer may”, “in his discretion, authorise any document” to be amended indicate that the power to be exercised is only discretionary power - the order of the Commissioner in not acceding to the request for amendment of shipping bills in terms of Section 149 cannot be held to be arbitrary - appeal rejected - decided against Appellant.
-
2009 (11) TMI 723 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... l against the order passed in Atari (India) Electronics case, but that application was dismissed as time-barred. Against an order of the Tribunal dismissing a reference application, there was a remedy in law in those days but the department never chose to take recourse to it. Consequently, the Tribunal rsquo s decision in Atari (India) Electronics case attained finality and the same was only liable to be followed in the similar case of M/s. Videocon International Ltd. 5. Let the stand taken by the learned Collector be considered as an ignoble episode in the department rsquo s history. Let the nobility of judicial discipline be upheld as a vital ingredient of the rule of law. We trust, the adjudicating and appellate authorities in the department will honour this great principle to avoid anarchy in the field of administration of law and justice. 6. The Collector rsquo s order is set aside and this appeal is allowed with consequential relief to the appellant. (Dictated in Court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 717 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... l imported prior to 1-8-2003. However, we find considerable force in the argument of the appellant that they should have been heard before the assessment was finalized. The claim that the assessment could not have been finalized without furnishing the assessee a copy of the Chemical Examiner rsquo s report of the samples of the impugned consignments is also valid. During hearing, the learned Counsel for the appellant had requested for remanding the matter for a fresh adjudication. We find that the Bills of Entry involved have to be finally assessed after hearing the submissions of the appellant also on the test report of the Chemical Examiner. In the circumstances, we remand the matter to the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/Dy. Commissioner for finalization of provisional assessment of the subject Bills of Entry in accordance with law after complying with principles of natural justice. The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand. (Pronounced in open Court on 17-11-2009)
-
2009 (11) TMI 714 - CESTAT BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... pra, he being the proper officer of Customs is wholly responsible for any illegal clearance without proper examination and assessment. He cannot put the blame on others. Because the past records in several consignment show that this has been going on like this as evidenced from the statement of late Ammasi, the Prop. of M/s. Acuta spectra and Mr. Md. Riyazuddin the recipient of the parcels that they have been doing this smoothly. rdquo We find from the narration as indicated above that the role of appellant in the offence is totally unclear and there is no evidence to implicate him by name. We find that at the most this case could be of negligence and not abetment. Hence penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962, prima facie, does not seem to be correct. In view of this position, we waive pre-deposit of the penalty amounts involved against the appellant and stay recovery thereof till the disposal of the appeals. The stay petitions are allowed.
-
2009 (11) TMI 712 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... t admissible. 2. I have heard both sides. Complete description of the goods is contained in the packing list and invoice, which show that the sewing machines were fitted with motors. These documents were made available to the department as seen from the adjudication order and production of these documents is also part of the Risk Management System (RMS). Therefore, I agree with the ld. counsel for the appellants that there has been no misdeclaration of the description of the goods so as to warrant confiscation under the provisions of Section 111(m) and the claim to the benefit of the notification does not amount to mala fide on their part so as to attract penal action in the light of the Tribunal rsquo s decision in Urvesh Psyllium Industries Ltd. v. CC (Imports), Mumbai 2005 (180) E.L.T. 488 . Therefore, while upholding the differential duty demand, I set aside confiscation and fine and penalty and allow the appeal to the above extent. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 707 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... Reverse Osmosis Technology using Thin Film Composite Membrane. The Reverse Osmosis Membrane by itself would not constitute water purification equipment. It is clear from the Tariff entry mentioned in Col. No. 2 of the Table ibid that, only the complete equipment can claim the benefit of lsquo Nil rsquo rate of duty. Parts of equipments falling under Heading 8421 21 mentioned in the Notification are separately classified under sub-heading 8421 91 and sub-heading 8421 99. The membrane can, at best, be a part of the water purification equipment, based on Reversed Osmosis Technology and such part appears to be classifiable under sub-heading 8421 99, which entry does not figure in the exemption Notification. 3. The appellant has not made out a prima facie case, nor have they pleaded financial hardships. In the circumstances, there will be a direction to them to pre-deposit the entire demand of duty within a period of four weeks. Report compliance on 4-1-2010. (Pronounced in court)
-
2009 (11) TMI 705 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... o the appellants to pay interest also within 30 days of communication of this order and in such an event, they would be fulfilling requirement of payment of duty, interest and penalty to the extent of 25 , within 30 days from this order. It is made clear that if any of these three elements have not been paid or is not paid within 30 days of communication of this order, appellants shall be liable to pay penalty equal to Central Excise duty under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944. 4. As regards penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the partner and in view of the fact that total duty demanded is only Rs. 1,32,356/- and penalty on the firm has also been imposed under Section 11AC of Central Excise Act, 1944 and taking into account overall facts and circumstances of the case, I consider it appropriate to reduce the penalty on the partner of the firm to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). Appeals are decided in the above manner. (Pronounced in the Court on 10th Nov., 2009)
-
2009 (11) TMI 703 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Waiver of pre-deposit - N/N. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 as amended by N/N. 20/2007 and N/N. 61/2007, dated 3-5-2007 - revenue was of the view that the aircraft was not used exclusively for providing non-scheduled passenger air transport services and therefore there was violation of conditions of N/N. 61/2007 - Held that: - permit has been issued only for passenger services. Prima facie, there is a different permit for charter services and, therefore, the permit given to the applicant may not be valid for rendering charter passenger services. Therefore, the condition of the exemption notification is prima facie, violated. Further, the condition given in the undertaking to the Customs authorities also stands violated. Therefore, on merits, the applicant has not made out a case for waiver of dues - appeal dismissed - decided against applicant.
-
2009 (11) TMI 649 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Writ - petitioner herein was assessed provisionally on the basis of the investigation done by the designated authority with reference to levy of anti-dumpting duty - petitioner pointed out that when the order had already been made by the Co-ordinate Bench on an identical circumstance, the first respondent should give exemption of duty and take up the appeal on merit - Held that:- mere fact that the Tribunal has not accepted the plea of the petitioner as regards binding character of the Co-ordinate Bench does not mean that the Tribunal had not considered the said contention. While there can be no two opinion as to the binding character of the decision of a Co-ordinate Bench on a another Bench, on any particular issue, yet given the freedom to differ from a decision of Co-ordinate Bench and to refer the same decision to a Larger Bench, no fault can be found on discretion exercised by the Tribunal, writ petition is disposed of
-
2009 (11) TMI 645 - GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, MINISTRY OF FINANCE
Revision Application - Foreign currency - illegal import - confiscation and penalty - held that:- a compulsory requirement of making a Custom Declaration Form (CDF) is the legal requirement specifically when the impugned foreign currency involved is more then US $ 5000 ( or equivalent). In this case the applicant has not made any declaration In CDF. - there is no “Independent” documentary evidence so as to confirm that presently seized foreign currency is necessarily from the unspent amount of that particular transaction/visit. Only proper CDF could be the connecting legal document which is very much missing in this case. In absence of such a vital link the entire theory/submissions appears to be an after thought and excuse. - Decided against the assessee.
Government observes that the confiscation of foreign currency under Section 113(d)(l) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with provisions of FEMA (Export and Import of Currency) Regulations, 2000 for violation of Section 77 of the Customs Act, 1962 read with relevant provisions/notifications from RBI and imposition of penalty under Section 114(i) of the Act, ibid cannot be assailed and was rightly adjudged by the lower authorities as per available admissible evidence/facts on record. - however redemption fine and penalty reduced.
-
2009 (11) TMI 643 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Valuation - Whether the demurrage, wharfage and stock loss charges paid are liable to be included in the assessable value in terms of Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 - in the case Indian Oil Corporation Limited (2004 -TMI - 46898 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) , appeal allowed and set aside the order passed and direct respondent No. 2 not to include the demurrage, wharfage and stock loss charges into assessable value of the appellant, the writ appeal is disposed of
............
|
