|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 110 Records
-
2011 (1) TMI 1581 - PATNA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e having been made without any notice to the petitioner and at an arbitrary price which was ridiculously and hugely less than the value fixed by the authorities themselves at the time of confiscation, the same cannot be legally relied upon. Accordingly, this writ petition is allowed and the respondents are directed to pay Rs. 14,63,684.00 (Rs. 21,68,100/- which is the value of the articles assessed by the authorities at the time of seizure minus Rs. 7,04,416.00 which was paid to the petitioner by the authorities on 16.02.2004) within four months from the date of receipt/production of a copy of this order along with interest at the rate of 12% per annum from the date of seizure up to the date of payment of the entire amount. It may be noted that any loss accrued to the Department of Revenue, Union of India in this matter may be compensated by deducting the amount of loss from the pockets of the authorities due to whose mistake public exchequer has been burdened in such manner.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1569 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... cution.” The accused is facing criminal prosecution under Sections 108, 132, 135 (1) (a) (1) (A) (B) of the Customs Act for evading custom duty on the goods. The goods imported in the name of his firm 'M/s Maa Shakti Industries' is under seizure of DRI. The custom duty which is payable on undeclared imported goods cannot be realized imposing any condition while releasing the accused on bail as the same can be realized by a separate proceeding under the Customs Act. The condition No.1 imposed by the learned Sessions Judge appears to be harsh which amounts to denial of bail, therefore, the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow could not impose condition No.1 while allowing the bail application of the accused, which is liable to be quashed and the revision deserves to be allowed. The criminal revision is, therefore, allowed. The impugned order dated 7.6.2010, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Lucknow is modified to the extent that the condition No.1 shall be deleted.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1557 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... ndent was duty bound to entertain the informer. According to the Respondent, PW2 had come to him in that very connection. In this regard, it may be noted that PW2 has supported the entire prosecution case except to the extent of demand and acceptance at the time of raid. No suggestion has been given to PW2 that the money brought to the house of the Respondent was earnest money. In view of the legal presumption as envisaged under Section 20, it was the duty of the Respondent to have rebutted the same by cogent evidence. The Respondent has failed to discharge that onus. No doubt as held in Subash Parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat, 2002 (5) SCC 86, the statutory presumption cannot be raised for an offence under section 13 (1) (d). However, for an offence under Section 7 this presumption has to be raised. 10. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment is set aside. The Respondent is convicted for offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1517 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... . Dave, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1505 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e, the findings are based on evidence collected after following due procedure. It was noted that the responses from Chinese exporters were deficient, which required further investigation. The designated authority made a comparison between the export price at normal value and also noticed that imports from China were increasing, resulting in retarding of domestic industry. In view of the said findings, the impugned notification levying anti-dumping duty, cannot be held to be perverse or arbitrary so as to call for interference by this Court, at this stage, ignoring the alternative statutory remedies available to the petitioner. 6. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. It is made clear that observations made hereinabove are only to consider whether alternative remedy should be treated as a bar to interfere at this stage and will not be treated as expression of final opinion on merits. This order will not affect the statutory remedy of appeal in accordance with law.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1504 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... J. ORDER Delay condoned. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1485 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
... ...
... ... ..... s would be made to get stay application heard and to obtain the order from the Hon’ble High Court, the matter was posted on 28.1.2011. However, when the matter was called today, again another letter dated 27.01.2011 is submitted which does not reflect any effort made by the Revenue during the period from 10 Jan to 27 Jan 2011 to get the matter heard. In view of the above discussion, I find that it is necessary to give directions to the concerned Commissioner to implement the order of this Tribunal dated 12.8.2010, as was done in the case of Overland Agency. 4. Accordingly, I allow the miscellaneous application and direct the Commissioner of Customs Kandla to implement the order of this Tribunal within a period of two weeks from today and report compliance on 18.02.2011. This order may be issued today to the learned DR and the learned DR is directed to communicate this order immediately to the concerned Commissioner to avoid delay. (Dictated and pronounced in the Court)
-
2011 (1) TMI 1464 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e respondent, drawn on any Nationalised bank. The bank guarantee shall be in favour of the Department, in respect of 50 of the difference in duty, to be kept alive till the adjudication process is completed. (3) In respect of the remaining 50 of the difference in duty, the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond to the satisfaction of the respondent. On completion of all the three conditions, the respondent shall release the goods. (4) On release of the goods in question, on the petitioner complying with the said conditions, the respondents shall complete the adjudication process, within a period of four weeks thereafter, by issuing a necessary show cause notice. It is made clear that on the issuing of the necessary show cause notice, the petitioner shall submit its objections, appear before the respondent, through its authorised representatives and cooperate with the Department in the adjudication process." Consequently, connected M.P.No.1 of 2011 is closed. No costs.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1439 - SC ORDER
... ...
... ... ..... ER Delay condoned. The Appeals are dismissed.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1433 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Power to summon persons to give evidence and produce documents - If learned ACMM considers some witnesses had been left out, instead of using its power of summoning additional witnesses under Section 311 Cr. P.C. during trial and to see that the culprit are punished, the learned ACMM seemed to have acted more like a Clerk than like a Judge and was happy in discharging everybody on the ground that there was no investigation on the point how the goods were allegedly exported, who were the officers posted at Customs Port at the relevant time and what goods were exported. - A Judge has power to summon additional evidence suo moto and has also power to question the witnesses and if he finds that investigation was mis-directed, the Judge can still ensure that necessary witnesses are summoned in the Court and examined - The parties are directed to appear before the Court of ACMM on 15th January, 2011
-
2011 (1) TMI 1432 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Investigation - 100% EOU - Bonded warehouse - Scrutiny - Demand - Apart from accepting that the import was made by M/s. ESSAR Oil Ltd. they have not been able to effectively rebut the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the removal of the goods from the warehouse was authorised by the Supdt. of Customs without payment of any Customs duty - Failure on the part of the respondents to invite the attention of the officers to the fact of non-payment of Additional Duty by the importer i.e. M/s. ESSAR Oil Ltd. cannot be equated with any wilful and mala fide suppression of fact on the part of the appellants - Appeals are rejected accordingly
-
2011 (1) TMI 1429 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Smuggling - Gold Bars - the conviction has been based only on the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 108 - Held that: - The possession of gold has been proved and the fact that it is of foreign origin has been proved by the statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act - Under Section 123 of the Customs Act, the burden of the prosecution is not to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the goods recovered were smuggled goods.
The statement of the petitioner recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act proves that there is a reasonable belief that the gold found in possession of the petitioner is smuggled. Though this statement is sought to be retracted after two days in the bail application which is not signed by the petitioner but by his counsel wherein it has only been written that the confession was coerced from him and the same stands withdrawn. This is not a proper retraction but a defence sought to be laid. This so called retraction does not cast a doubt on the voluntariness of the confessional statement.
It is a settled legal principle that under Section 30 of the Evidence Act, confession of co-accused can be used only to lend assurance.
Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1401 - DELHI HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... e FIR number on the seizure memo is concerned, the witnesses Inspector Jeewan Singh PW3, HC Baljeet Singh PW5 have clarified in their cross-examinations that when the seizure memos were prepared, the FIR number was not mentioned. PW7, SI Rakesh Kumar has clarified that FIR number was added on the seizure memo after the FIR was registered. Subsequent adding of FIR number on the document for procedural convenience would not amount to tempering of the document. This Court in Ramesh Kumar Rajput vs. State MANU/DE/0786/2008 relying on Radhey Shyam vs. State of Haryana 2001(10) SCC 206, held that mere writing of the FIR number on the arrest and search memos cannot entirely falsify these documents. 17. In view of the findings above, the appeal is dismissed and the conviction of the Appellant under Section 20 NDPS Act is upheld. The bail bond and the surety bond are cancelled. The Appellant be taken into custody to undergo the remaining sentence. (MUKTA GUPTA) JUDGE JANUARY 13, 2010
-
2011 (1) TMI 1396 - SUPREME COURT
Grant of Bail - offences under various provisions of the I.P.C., the Explosive Substances Act, and the Unlawful Activities (Prevention) Act - The prosecution case is that the respondent gave medical aid to one of the wounded accused in pursuance of a previous plan that if and when any of the assailants got injured in the attack on Prof. Jacob then immediate medical treatment would be given by the respondent to the injured - Held that: - the respondent has already spent 66 days in custody, and we see no reason why he should be denied bail. A doctor incarcerated for a long period may end up like Dr. Manette in Charles Dicken's novel `A Tale of Two Cities', who forgot his profession and even his name in the Bastille - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1386 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... quired to pursue the appeal. No clearance is on record and the appeal is an old one. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal for want of COD clearance with liberty to the assessee to apply for restoration in the event of clearance being granted. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2011 (1) TMI 1341 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... the condition that the respective petitioners deposit 50 of the penalty imposed on them within four weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the interim stay granted shall stand automatically vacated without any further reference to this court. The respondents are directed not to dispose of the seized gold as well as the foreign currency pending further orders. Notice.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1324 - SUPREME COURT
Whether Appellants were entitled to the benefit of doubt for in the opinion of the High Court the charge framed against the appellant had been satisfactorily proved?
Whether the appellants could be given the benefit of doubt having regard to the nature of the evidence adduced by the prosecution against them?
-
2011 (1) TMI 1319 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
... ...
... ... ..... Trade, Ludhiana, the request has been made for issuance of duplicate DEPB scrips, as the file was missing at its end. 4. We have heard learned Counsel for the parties. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submitted that in view of letter dated 9-11-2010 issued from the office of Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana, the original file was with the department and it has been missing from their office and in such case, the petitioner cannot be deprived of the benefit as per order dated 26-3-2009. Learned Counsel for the respondents is unable to rebut the submission. 6. Accordingly, we direct respondent No. 3 to issue necessary documents to the petitioner to enable it to get the re-credit, within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Respondent No. 3 may secure the duplicate DEPBs for the purpose. Respondent No. 3 will pay the statutory interest, as may be due for the delay in accordance with law. 7. The petition is disposed of.
-
2011 (1) TMI 1314 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
... ...
... ... ..... . v. C.C., (Preventive) reported in 2004 (172) E.L.T. 145 (S.C.), the refund claim contrary to the assessment order, which assessment order has not been put to challenge, cannot be entertained. 4. We find force in both the above contentions of the learned SDR. The Revenue authorities are bound by the law laid down in Section 27 of the Customs Act and cannot exceed their jurisdiction to grant refund even when the same stands filed after the period of limitation, irrespective of the fact that whether the same is otherwise admissible on merits or not. Similarly, the law as regards filing of refund claim without putting the assessment order to challenge stand settled by the above referred judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. C.C., (Preventive) (supra). 5. In view of the above, we set aside the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) and allow the appeal filed by the Department. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2011 (1) TMI 1313 - CESTAT CHENNAI
... ...
... ... ..... ;In view of the fact that the appellants have imported the impugned goods in violation of Rule 43A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 through Tuticorin Port, the action taken against them for confiscation of the impugned goods, imposition of redemption fine and imposition of penalty is legally justified. However, they have made out a case for leniency and the authorities below have also dealt with the appellants leniently by imposing a token penalty of ₹ 5000/- in each of two cases. The same calls for no further reduction. However, the redemption fine of ₹ 5 lakhs has been imposed in respect of each case, which calls for reduction on the ground of leniency. Accordingly, the redemption fine is reduced to ₹ 2 lakhs in each case with a caution that future violation of the same kind would not call for such leniency. 6. Both the appeals are thus partially allowed by way of reduction of the redemption fines to the above extent. (Pronounced in open Court)
........
|
