|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 930 Records
-
2011 (12) TMI 708 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s to have been installed or otherwise used within the unit or re-exported within a period of one year from the date of importation or procurement thereof or within such extended period not exceeding five years as the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs may on being satisfied that there is sufficient cause for not using them as above within the said period allow;” 7. With regard to the duty on consumables etc., the relevant clause that is applicable is clause 3(b)(iv). This requires the exporter to achieve Net Foreign Exchange Earning as a Percentage of Exports (NFEP) and Export Performance. Insofar as this is concerned, the Tribunal seems to have only adverted to it without any discussion on the applicability or otherwise of this clause. 8. Under the circumstances, we issue notice to the respondent only with regard to the interpretation of clause 3(b)(iv) of the Notification No. 126/94, dated 3-6-1994. 9. List on 1-2-2012.
-
2011 (12) TMI 700 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... d on the SLP Paper Books. Additional documents, if any, may be filed by the parties.
-
2011 (12) TMI 669 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e time of paying the duty as per the Bill of Entry and right through before the Tribunal, I do not find any justifiable ground to accept the plea of the petitioner herein that what is sought to be levied in the present proceedings is nothing but cess under the Rubber Act, 1947. In the light of what had been admitted in the grounds before the Tribunal and what was claimed by the assessee right through in the filing of the refund claim appeal, the present proceedings now taken to impose additional levy under Section 3(1), merits to be upheld by this Court. 54. In the circumstances I have no hesitation in rejecting the plea of the petitioner. Accordingly, I dismiss the writ petitions. No costs. Consequently, connected M.P. stands closed. 55. Considering the fact that the petitioner has approached this Court at the stage of show cause notice, the respondents are directed to give an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before the passing of orders at the adjudication therein.
-
2011 (12) TMI 652 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... 11,35,000/- dt. 1.10.2011. The departmental representative concerned points out that there is no tally between the payment claimed by the appellants and the records of the department. We need not look further into this controversy inasmuch as, indisputably, the order for pre-deposit is yet to be duly complied with. 3. Ld. counsel for the appellants in Appeal No. C/550/09 submits that their writ appeal against the Tribunal’s stay order is pending before the Hon’ble High Court. He prays that the matter be kept in abeyance till the appellant gets appropriate orders from the Hon’ble High Court. We are not inclined to accede to this request inasmuch as the appellant did not choose to pre-deposit any amount in terms of the Tribunal’s direction and the writ petition was dismissed by the Hon’ble High Court. 4. In the result, all the appeals are dismissed for want of compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2011 (12) TMI 645 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... 8. On going through the grounds of appeal, we find no valid reason stands advanced by the Revenue for enhancement of the redemption fine and penalty. The finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) is that there is no malafide on the part of the importer does not stand rebutted by the Revenue. Need to re-export of the impugned goods arose only because the importer could not get licence from the Drugs Controller of India. There is no dispute that the goods were correctly declared by the by the appellant. In such, a scenario, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) reducing redemption fine and penalty. The Revenue’s appeal is rejected. 9. Miscellaneous application stands filed for early hearing of the appeal. Inasmuch as the appeal stands disposed of, miscellaneous application for early hearing is also disposed of. 10. Miscellaneous application and stay petition alongwith appeal get disposed in the above manners. (Pronounced in the open court)
-
2011 (12) TMI 628 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... s job in accordance with his licence. In such circumstances, it would have been just and proper for the respondents to permit the petitioner no.1 to work as Customs House Agent. Not having done so, the respondents authorities had committed an illegality. Therefore, the respondents are directed to allow the petitioner no.1 to act as Customs House Agent forthwith. However, I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of the miscellaneous application pending before the Tribunal which is to be considered on merits where the petitioners are at liberty to raise all points which have been raised in the writ petition. The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. Learned advocates for the parties are permitted to take down the gist of this order and the respondents including the respondent no.1 shall act on the basis of such communication. All parties concerned are to act on a signed copy of the minutes of the operative part of this order on the usual undertakings.
-
2011 (12) TMI 617 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... y is 20 grams or less. Admittedly, the net weight of the samples drawn was 16 grams as can be seen from the Analyst Report itself. I, therefore, agree with the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that in view of Rule 32 (b) read with Rule 32 (f) proviso, it is not incumbent upon the petitioners to label the sample with the details envisaged by Rule 32(b) as the net weight of the product was 16 grams only. Consequently, it cannot be held that the petitioners were guilty of misbranding the product. Thus it is clear that the petitioners are not guilty of either adulteration or misbranding of the sample. The claim of violation under the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act consequently is misconceived. The prosecution against the petitioners is liable to be quashed. 13. Accordingly, this Criminal Petition is allowed. C.C.No.429 of 2009 on the file of the I Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, Vijayawada, Krishna District is hereby quashed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 611 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... r. Siddhartha Jha, Adv. Mr. A.K. Sharma, Adv. Mr. B. Krishna Prasad, Adv. O R D E R Delay in filing Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 26671-26674/2011 is condoned. Leave granted. The appeals will be heard on the SLP Paper Books. Additional documents, if any, may be filed by the parties.
-
2011 (12) TMI 609 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... here was no basis to pass the order of detention and the matter must be viewed from the point of time when the order was made. We may also note that unlike the decision in Maqsood Yusuf Merchant Vs. Union of India and Another, (2008) 16 SCC 31 the concerned authorities do have a case that the detenu was continuing with his operations which are sought to be prevented in law. In fact, we put it to the petitioner whether the petitioner is inclined to amend the Writ Petition and to seek judicial review. Learned senior counsel for the petitioner, however, stated that the petitioner is pressing for orders as it is. We must state that we have not had the benefit of perusing the grounds of detention and for all purposes, despite the execution of the order, it remains a pre-execution challenge. Having regard to the above facts and circumstances presented before us and on our understanding of the law, we find no merit in the Writ Petition and accordingly, we dismiss the Writ Petition.
-
2011 (12) TMI 607 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ner/department that he had accorded sanction of prosecution vide Ex. PW1/B. If the sanction had already been proved vide Ex. PW1/B, there did not appear to be any justifiable reason for examination of this witness. 5. The way the case seems to have been prosecuted by the department is also demonstrated from the fact that the impugned order was passed on 7-4-2011 and the present petition has been filed after more than eight months. Even filing of the present petition is highly belated and no reason much less sufficient has been set out for the delay in filing the present petition assailing the impugned order. The trial has already protracted at the trial Court stage for more than 24 years and I am of the view that the exercise of judicial discretion does not permit to make respondent suffer for an indefinite period. There has to be put an end to such trials conducted by the department with condemnable lethargic attitude. The petition has no merit and is hereby dismissed.
-
2011 (12) TMI 567 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... (SC). Therefore, there is a mistake apparent on record. Therefore, the decision of Bombay High Court cannot be relied upon. 2. Heard the ld. AR. We find that when this Tribunal passed the order on 28.10.2010 the decision of the Bombay High Court in the case of Shabir Ahmed Abdul Rehman was relied upon and revenue did not inform this Tribunal that the said order has been stayed by the Hon'ble Apex Court. Therefore, in this set of facts, we do not find any mistake committed by this Tribunal on 28.10.2010. Accordingly, we reject the application for rectification of mistake. (Dictated in Court)
-
2011 (12) TMI 564 - KERALA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... resentation before the second respondent along with a copy of the judgment in W.P. (C) No. 29364 of 2006 and seeking permission to reprocess and re-export the goods, the second respondent shall take an appropriate decision thereon by taking a realistic stand and permit such reprocessing. It will be open to the second respondent to impose such conditions as he deems fit and proper to ensure that the goods are not sold in the domestic market and are re-exported after re-processing it in a 100 export oriented unit. The petitioner shall meet expenses in that regard. Needless to say having regard to the perishable nature of the goods, the second respondent shall take an expeditious decision on the request within one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. I make it clear that have not interfered with fine penalty levied as per Ext. P5 and it will be open to the petitioner to challenge Ext. P5 in other appropriate proceedings. Hand over to both sides on usual terms.
-
2011 (12) TMI 538 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... n transferred, yet the grounds indicated that the representation meant for the detaining authority ought to be sent to the Joint Secretary (COFEPOSA). It was argued that she could not have done so. Fifthly, in any event, this has created confusion in the mind of the detenu as he is not sure as to who is his detaining authority for the purposes of considering his representation. 24. All these are serious concerns on the part of the detenu. However, because of the view we have already taken on the point of nonsupply of relied upon documents, we do not feel it necessary to conclusively deal with the question as to who is to consider the detenu’s representation meant for the detaining authority. We leave this issue open. 25. These are the reasons as to why, by our said order dated 23.12.2011, while allowing the writ petition, we quashed the impugned detention order and directed that the detenu (Shri Harmesh Arora) be released from detention forthwith and be set at liberty.
-
2011 (12) TMI 529 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Release of detained goods - waiver of bank guarantee of equal amount - appellant's case is that they had given earlier the bank guarantee for ₹ 2 crores for provisional release of earlier export consignment - Held that: - the appellant had already given a bank guarantee of ₹ 2 crores to cover the earlier three consignments. The exports are being made under DEPB scheme. Even if the Revenue’s case is proved the consequence of the same would be denial of said DEPB. The Revenue has already drawn samples from the present consignment, in which case provisional release of the same would not cause any adverse affect to the Revenue’s case - the earlier bank guarantee of ₹ 2 crores executed by the appellant should be considered as sufficient to cover present consignment also considering the quantum of reasonable fine and penalty that can be imposed in this case. Therefore, there is no need to give further bank guarantee as directed by the Commissioner - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2011 (12) TMI 502 - CESTAT MUMBAI
... ...
... ... ..... r circumstances of this case, we consider that this is a fit case for condonation of delay as a special case on humanitarian grounds. Accordingly, we condone the delay and take up the stay petition for disposal. 6. In view of the fact that the adjudication order has been passed ex parte, learned Advocate submitted that the matter may be remanded to the Adjudicating authority so that the matter could be heard on merit following the principles of natural justice. He also submitted that appellants will co-operate in speedy adjudication and will not cause undue delay. Accordingly, we allow the waiver of pre-deposit and set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Adjudicating authority, who shall decide the issue on merits after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellants to present their case. 7. All applications for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, stay petitions and appeals are allowed in the above terms. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
-
2011 (12) TMI 501 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... of the silver is incorrect. I also take note of the fact that in absence of any foreign markings on the silver, the only evidence in support of the department’s allegation against the appellant is his confessional statement dated 28-1-2000, which, as discussed above, is unreliable, more so when the appellant’s statement regarding stay at Nawalgarhia Dharamshala in Deoria during his visit to that place is not corroborated by the Manager of that Dharamshala and the part of his confessional statement regarding sale of smuggled silver after melting and dilution to three dealers in Varanasi has not been corroborated by those dealers. Only on the basis of such a confessional statement of the appellant, the confiscation of the silver, currency and the vehicle under seizure and imposition of penalty on the appellant is not sustainable. 7. In view of the above discussion, the impugned order is set aside. The appeal is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2011 (12) TMI 497 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... are of the view that the appeals by the Revenue would have to be allowed. The first Question of Law which has been formulated, shall accordingly stand answered in the negative. The second Question of Law has not been pressed on behalf of the Revenue. The Third and the Fourth Questions of Law would have to be answered in the negative having regard to the substituted provisions of sub-section (8) of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975. The fifth Question of Law shall stand answered in terms of the decision of the first Question of Law. The appeals are, accordingly, allowed in these terms. There shall be no order as to costs. As far as the Writ Petitions are concerned, for the reasons already indicated, sub-rule (2) of Rule 21 of the Anti-dumping Rules is not ultra vires the provisions of Section 9A(1). Similarly, the notification dated 1 May 2003 is not ultra vires the provisions of Section 9A(1). Both the Petitions shall therefore stand dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2011 (12) TMI 402 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Application for stay - Special additional duty - Right to use - Notification No. 102/07-Cus dated 14.09.2007 - In this case the respondent after import of the Set Top Boxes, supplied those Set Top Boxes to consumers on right to use basis and in respect of such supply, the VAT was paid by them by treating the same as sale - Held that: there is no dispute that the Set Top Boxes have been imported by the respondent for supply to their consumers on right to use basis for which some amount is charged by the respondent and on that amount VAT has been paid in terms of provision of the VAT Acts of the State Governments - the word 'sale' has not been defined in this notification, it is clear that the word 'sale' must be understood in the sense in which it has been defined in sales tax /VAT Acts of various State Governments or Central Tax Act, 1956 and in their Acts, the word 'sale' also includes transfer of right to use any goods for any purpose (whether or not for a specified period) for cash or deferred payment or other valuable consideration there is no order for remand and what the Commissioner (Appeals) has done is that he has allowed the appeals subject to verification of the original documents for the purpose of refuned wherever necessary in terms of the Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. and this direction cannot be treated as remanding the matter to the original adjudicating authority for denovo adjudication - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2011 (12) TMI 355 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Anti-dumping duty - The petitioner had filed an application before the Designated Authority ('DA' for short) alleging dumping of Penicillin-G Potassium originating in or exported from China PR and Mexico as also of 6-Amino Penicillin Acid (6- APA for short) originating in or exported from China PR - It is the case of the petitioner that as per Rule 18 of the Rules, Central Government was required to impose Anti-dumping duty in terms of recommendations of DA within three months of the date of publication of final findings - even if Central Government were to accept the recommendations of DA for imposition of Anti-dumping duty, the extent of such Anti-dumping duty need not necessarily be as recommended by DA - several Courts have opined that the recommendations of the DA are not binding on the Government Whether the Central Government had sufficient reasons not to impose duty despite recommendations made by the DA - DA had come to certain conclusions which were not disputed by the Central Government. Insofar as factual findings are concerned, such findings were perhaps not even open to challenge by the Central Government - Held that: the Central Government has taken into consideration various factors and come to the conclusion that it is not in public interest to impose Anti-dumping duty - Decided against the petitioner
-
2011 (12) TMI 209 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Petitioner sought to challenge notification issued on 31 October 2011 – Notification brought amendment in Chapter – 2 dealing with "Meat and Edible Meat Offal." of Schedule 2 of the ITC (HS) Classification of Export and Import Items – petitioner, registered with APEDA, is an exporter of buffalo meat – Held that:- The present notification dated 31 October 2011 is clarificatory. Under the present notification, both the meat processing plant and the place where-from the meat is sourced as a raw material have to be duly registered with APEDA. Whether the meat processing plant has an integrated abattoir or is only a stand alone meat processing plant, does not make any difference to the applicability of the notification. In the case of both, a registration is required with APEDA. In our view, the Union Government was not acting ultra vires its statutory powers when it imposed these restrictions. These restrictions were as a matter of fact in existence since 2004 and the notification of 31 October 2011 is clarificatory to set the matter beyond any doubt. The fundamental right of carrying out business under Article 19 (1) (g) is subject to reasonable restraints under Article 19 (6). The notification does not fall foul of Constitutional provisions. Delhi High Court on 28 November 2011 has dismissed a petition of M/s. Marya Frozen Agro Foods Pvt. Ltd. raising a similar challenge.
........
|
