|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 859 Records
-
2010 (11) TMI 269 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Conversion of shipping bills - Conversion of EP copy of shipping bills from EPCG & DEPB to EPCG & DFIA - The appellants had exported 7 consignments of Non-alloy Steel Slabs claiming benefit under EPCG & DEPB scheme - Since the export goods had been withdrawn from the DEPB scheme, they had sought amendment of the shipping bills claiming EPCG & DFIA benefits. The application filed by the appellants for conversion of shipping bills from one scheme to another has been denied by the Commissioner without communicating any reason therefor - Commissioner is competent to allow the amendment sought by the appellants - The appellants are entitled to the relief sought in terms of provisions of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 - As the Commissioner has not disposed the application filed by the appellants by a speaking order - Hence, allow the appeal filed by the appellants and direct the Commissioner to consider the application filed by the appellants - Appeal is disposed of by way of remand.
-
2010 (11) TMI 253 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Notice of motion - Private notice - No counter has been filed so far by the respondent, even after more than 2 years and 11 months, which shows the casual nature, the court proceedings are treated by the office of the Commissioner of Customs - It has come to the notice of this Court that in several cases relating to Customs and Central Excise, the former counsel states that they have handed over the papers and consequently, the Department is unrepresented - The Central Board of Customs and Excise should take note of the situation and issue suitable direction to the respective Chief Commissioners to ensure proper representation in Court proceedings - The Writ Petition is disposed of
-
2010 (11) TMI 238 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Exemption - Export through third party - Export obligation - proof of export - 100% export - parallel proceedings by the Excise Department and the Foreign Trade Department - Held that: - Order passed by the tribunal despite the proceedings initiated by Foreign Trade Department - In view of finding recorded by the Development Commissioner and the Tribunal on merits holding that the assessee did not violate the conditions for availing the exemption from customs duty, which has not been challenged by the revenue, the questions raised on behalf of the revenue cannot be held to be substantial questions of law and need not be gone into.
-
2010 (11) TMI 204 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Imported goods - Bonded Warehouse - Interim custody - Seize - The foreign made foreign liquor seized in this case were all imported to India, they were originally deposited in Customs Bonded Warehouse, New Delhi - As provided under Section 67, the foreign made foreign liquor so deposited at the Bonded Warehouse, Delhi are being transported, to be deposited at CWC Warehouse, W. Island, Kochi - The Customs officials are entitled to transfer the foreign liquor so deposited in one Bonded Warehouse to another Bonded Warehouse - Excise Officials are not entitled to seize such foreign liquor, while it is in the custody of the Customs Officials either in the Bonded Warehouse or while transferring from one Bonded Warehouse to another Bonded Warehouse - Assistant Commissioner of Customs is entitled to get interim custody of the foreign made foreign liquor seized - But at the same time if the said foreign liquor is to be delivered to the third respondent or to any FL 3 licensee, it can only be subject to the compliance with the provisions - Hence, Petition is allowed.
-
2010 (11) TMI 181 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
DEPB - Misdeclaration of quantity and value - Demand - Confiscation - It was settled that when the Licensing Authority had not taken any steps to cancel the license, then the DEPB License issued continued to be valid and could not questioned by the Customs authority - The CHA who handled the impugned exports for the appellants and the cargo executive of the said firm denied that an exporter could under declare the weight in the Shipping Bills - In any case, by dividing the total weight of the consignments by lower of the two weights of steel pegs, a higher number of steel pegs is found as exported - The details of Shipping Bill No. 1069903 dated 15-1-2002 were relied on by the Commissioner to find that with reference to the unit price and the actual number of steel pegs exported, the appellants had fraudulently obtained an excess DEPB credit of Rs. 4,14,065 - Commissioner’s finding as regards mis-declaration of the number of steel pegs exported by the appellants during the material period in all the Shipping Bills is correct - The mis-declaration is wilful and the impugned order of penalty is justified - Appeal is rejected
-
2010 (11) TMI 167 - KERALA HIGH COURT
DGFT - Import restriction - Writ petitions have been filed by importers of betel nuts, challenging Notification No. 15 (RE-2008)/2004-2009 dated 4-6-2008 issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade in the purported exercise of powers conferred by Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, incorporating the condition that import of betel nuts, whole, split, ground and others, will be permitted freely provided the CIF value is Rs. 35/- per Kilogram and above. The Central Government which can formulate export and import policy and amend the said policy - It also is evident that the power conferred on the Central Government u/s 5 cannot be delegated to the Director General of Foreign Trade appointed u/s 6 of the Act - Thus the notification has been issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade, it has to be concluded that the notification is issued without jurisdiction - As per the judgment of the Madras High Court, the Notification dated 4-6-2008 issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade is illegal and is to be set aside - Hence, writ petitions will allowed setting aside the notifications.
-
2010 (11) TMI 166 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
CESTAT procedure – reopening of an order - Held that: Viewing from any angle reopening of the matter for rehearing suo-motto at the instance of one of the members cannot have legal approval. As rightly argued by the/learned counsel for the petitioner once the order is, in the manner as recognised under Rule 26 is pronounced, written and signed, the same is bound to be followed by detailed order in consonance with the same and the gist of decision delivered in open court is for all practical purposes to be treated as final decision and what is to be followed is the detailed order containing reasons in support of the final decision and the Tribunal become functus officio and has no power to reopen the matter on merits. the President is empowered to pass directions regulating the manner of discharge of functions by the benches and the Order No. 4/09, dated 17-7-2009 is issued only prospectively and the re-opening of the appeal filed by the petitioner for rehearing is without reference to Order No. 4/09, dated 17-7-2009 and the bench having passed gist of decision in the manner recognised under Rule 26 becomes functus officio - no suo-motto power to recall its own order and to reopen the matter for rehearing on merits
-
2010 (11) TMI 113 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Provisional assessment – Direction of officer – Importer seeking provisional assessment - Rules do not permit provisional assessment under Section 18 in a situation where the importer wants to defer assessment for reasons which are attributable to the importer. Section 18(1) of the Customs Act does not make it mandatory on the proper officer to make a provisional assessment. The use of the word “may” indicates that it is the discretion of the officer to make provisional assessment, if there are circumstances justifying it. What is important to be noted is that this provision incorporated in the statute is to be invoked in situations where on account of the circumstances set out in Section 18 of the Act, the proper officer is unable to assess the customs duty and not where assessment is deferred at the request of the importer. - provisional assessment as sought for by the petitioners was against the provisions of the Act and the Regulations of 1963 and hence, cannot be ordered - the prayer sought to direct the respondents to provisionally assess the cargo of betel nuts imported by the petitioners cannot be granted.
-
2010 (11) TMI 106 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Waiver of pre-deposit – penalty – smuggling of new Mercedes Benz car which was imported without customs check and replaced by an old car – Car found in premises of importer - none of the learned Advocates are questioning the fact of smuggling out of the impugned Mercedes Benz car and replacement of the same in the Container Freight Station - none of the appellants have made out a prima facie case for total waiver of the requirement of the pre-deposit of penalty amounts – Directed to pre-deposit 10% of penalties
-
2010 (11) TMI 103 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Waiver or Pre-deposit - LCD TFT - classifiable under tariff head 9013 80 10 or under tariff head 8529 90 90 - By the impugned order dated 28.06.2010 the CESTAT decline to follow its earlier order dated 23.2.2009 in view of the changes in the Tariff Heading introduced by the Finance Act 2006 & directed the appellant to deposit Rs. 5 crores. Challenging the aforesaid order, the present appeal is filed - Apex court in the case of Navin Chemicals Mffg & Trading Co. Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs reported in (1993 -TMI - 43621 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) considered similar expression namely determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment - The tribunal was not justified in directing predeposit when the classification of the goods in question stands concluded in favour of the assessee
-
2010 (11) TMI 85 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Exemption notification - pre-import conditions - exemption notification allows use of imported aircrafts both for non-scheduled (passenger) services and for non-scheduled (charter) services and the CAR permits the former category to be used for the latter category - exemption notification does not restrict use of an imported aircraft by the group companies - intention of the Government that exempted aircrafts should not be allowed to be used by the group companies even on payment
-
2010 (11) TMI 29 - SC ORDER
Interrogation - presence of advocate - section 108 of Customs act - SC allows the interrogation in the presence of advocate, who would be entitled to stay at a visible but beyond hearing distance, from the place of interrogation
-
2010 (11) TMI 20 - SUPREME COURT
Classification - and Duplicating machines, printers and Multi-Functional Machines - Xerox machines - Held that: - that the correct classification for the imported Multi-Functional Machines involved in this case, namely models Xerox Regal 5799, Xerox Workcentre XD 100 and Xerox Workcentre XD 155df should be under Customs Tariff Chapter heading 84.71.60 (as Input output units) - there has been no case made out for classification of the goods under the residuary heading 84.79.89
-
2010 (10) TMI 1249 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... l. Copy of the appeal is produced as Ext.P9. The petitioner seeks the same order as in the earlier judgment pending disposal of the said appeal. In view of the facts and circumstances of the case I am of opinion that pending disposal of the second appeal also, the petitioner can be permitted to clear the goods. Accordingly the respondents shall permit the petitioner to clear the goods on payment of 50% of the duty demanded and furnishing bank guarantee for the balance. Demand for redemption fine and penalty would stand stayed until orders are passed by the 4th respondent on Ext.P9 appeal. The petitioner shall further execute a bond as provided under Section 143 of the Customs Act to pay the duty fine and penalty as per orders in Ext.P9 appeal. The Writ Petition is disposed of as above, in view of my above order I do not think that any further orders are necessary in the Contempt Case and in the Review Petition. Accordingly, the Contempt Case and in Review Petition are closed.
-
2010 (10) TMI 1222 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... R. Dave, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2010 (10) TMI 1156 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... zure memo. We do not find any ground on the part of the appellants to challenge the same. No material has been brought to our notice to take a different view insofar as quantification of the amount is concerned. We are equally of the view that the learned Single Judge rightly granted interest at the rate of 12 percent on the balance amount. 4. One more aspect must be noticed. Section 150 of the Act provides that there shall be a notice to the alleged owner of the goods before it is auction sold. No such notice was served on the respondent as a result of which he was, inter alia, deprived of participating in the auction sale. The learned Single Judge was, therefore, right in granting interest at the rate of 12 per cent. The appellants have burdened this Court by generating most needless litigations. 5. In the result, this appeal is dismissed. The respondent shall be entitled to interest on the unpaid amount from the date of seizure of goods till the date of payment.
-
2010 (10) TMI 1155 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... uggest that their statements were otherwise voluntarily. In the case in hand, the circumstances are suggesting otherwise, the entire acts done by the officials, come under a serious shadow of doubt. Hence, no conviction can be passed on the basis of material available on record against either of the accused. In such circumstances, when there would not be any possibility of conviction of either of the accused, even if, the prosecution case brought on record till date, remains unrebutted, accused are entitled for discharge. Held accordingly. Accused are discharged. Their bail bonds cancelled. Sureties discharged. Endorsement on the document of surety, if any, cancelled. Original documents, if any, be returned to persons entitled after due verification.” 3. Heard. 4. I have gone through the order dated 26-4-2010 passed by learned ACMM and I do not find any infirmity in the said order. 5. There is no merits in the petition. The same is, therefore, dismissed.
-
2010 (10) TMI 1146 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... n the room in which he was occupying in the Hotel. Based on the above, a Show Cause Notice dated 22.11.03 was issued to the appellant and to certain others. The notice was adjudicated by the Commissioner who absolutely confiscated the foreign currencies and imposed a penalty of ₹ 10 lakhs on the appellants. Hence, this appeal. 2. We have heard both sides. We find that the statements on record clearly bring out that the appellant attempted to smuggle the foreign currencies out of India. He has also admitted that the foreign currencies seized from his checked in baggage as well as from the flush tank in the toilet belong to him and was to be smuggled out of India. Therefore, absolute confiscation is warranted and penal action against the appellant is also sustainable. However, having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, we reduce the penalty imposed on the appellants to Rs. Five lakhs. 3. The appeal is thus partly allowed in the above terms.
-
2010 (10) TMI 1141 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
... ...
... ... ..... s under protest and refund cannot be denied on this ground. 7. In view of above, I set aside the order of the? Commissioner (Appeals) and hold that refund cannot be denied on the ground of time-bar if it is otherwise eligible. 8. Appeals are accordingly allowed in the above terms. 7. It can be seen that in an identical situation, the Division Bench and the co-ordinate Bench of the Tribunal has taken a view on the discharge of the customs duty liability on the enhanced valuation or denial of exemption notification and preferring an appeal is payment of duty under protestand if the assessee succeeds in the litigation, the question of time bar does not arise. 8. Accordingly, respectfully following the said decisions, I am of the considered view that in this case, orders of both the lower authorities are unsustainable and are liable to be set aside and I do so. I set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeal with consequential relief. (Pronounced and dictated in open court)
-
2010 (10) TMI 1129 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... o remit ₹ 15 lakhs towards fine and ₹ 2.5 lakhs towards penalty. This order was set aside by the Tribunal in an appeal filed by the petitioner and the matter was remanded. 2. The adjudication continued and Ext.P1 order in original was passed ordering confiscation of the machine with option to the petitioner remit fine of ₹ 16 lakhs and penalty of ₹ 6.5 lakhs. The appeal filed to the Tribunal was rejected by Ext.P2 order dated 21.3.2007. It is challenging this order that this writ petition is filed. 3. Although, counsel for the petitioner contended that the findings in Ext.P1 and Ext.P2 are irregular and illegal, having regard to the facts found in Ext.P1 and the finding of facts arrived at by the statutory authorities, this order is unassailable. For the reasons mentioned in Ext.P2, the appellate authority also cannot be faulted for dismissing the appeal. Therefore Exts.P1 and P2 deserves to be upheld and I do so. Writ petition fails and is dismissed.
............
|
