|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 65 Records
-
2011 (5) TMI 447 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Refund - Provisional assessment - assessments were finalised after the amendment and therefore the ratio of the above decision is not applicable on the facts of the present case - Before claiming a relief of refund, it is necessary for the petitioner/appellant to show that he has paid the amount for which relief is sought, he has not passed on the burden on consumers and if such relief is not granted, he would suffer loss - Held that: finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that in the present case the principles of unjust enrichment are not sustainable is set aside - Decided in favour of the assessee by way of remand
-
2011 (5) TMI 439 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand of duty - Valuation of the goods - Acrylic sheets imported - The importers filed bills of entry and declared value of US $ 500 per metric ton - The adjudicating authority did not accept the value and rejected the same and ordered loading of value and assessed the bills of entry at US $ 950 per metric ton - Held that:- In case of any charge of mis-declaration the burden is on the department as held by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs. Garware Nylons [1996 -TMI - 44318 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - In absence of any evidence indicating that the transaction value between the importer and the foreign supplier is not genuine and the goods having found to be as per the declaration in the invoice, the demand of duty cannot arise - Thus, decided in favour of assessee.
-
2011 (5) TMI 420 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Import - Restricted goods which requires special import licence - As per the Hon ble Bombay High Court in the case of Sophisticated Marbles & Granite Industries vs. UOI [2004 -TMI - 46944 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY], in a similar set of situation where the imported goods requires special import licence and subsequent to the import, the importer wants to produce the licence, held that the importers who are importing goods without licence and seek to validate the import by obtaining subsequent licence or licences cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong - In view of this decision of the Hon ble High Court, find that the impugned order whereby the Commissioner (Appeals) condoned the condition of licence, is not sustainable. Classification of goods - find that the Commissioner (Appeals) reclassified the goods whereas that issue was already settled by the earlier order-in-appeal vide which the matter was remanded in respect of valuation only - Hence, the impugned order in respect of classification is also not sustainable.
-
2011 (5) TMI 403 - CESTAT, DELHI
Classification of goods - Restricted items - appellant imported Zinc Dross falling under Chapter sub heading No. 7902.0010 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1995 containing minimum 90% Zinc free of skimming is importable without any restriction in terms of Exim Policy 2002-2007 - Held that:- admittedly zinc dross are covered by Entry 7902. 0010. - It is only the items which are other than zinc dross and which are other items mentioned in 7902.0010 would fall under the residuary item 'others' would be restricted item. - chemical examiner's report does not give any reason as to why zinc dross in question cannot be considered to be of seal grade, it does not give further opionin has to under which category or grade the sample would fall, Even the Commissioner (Appeals) while rejecting the above classification claimed by the importer, has not given any finding on the correct classification of the product, order set aside, appeal allowed.
-
2011 (5) TMI 397 - CESTAT, AHEMDABAD
Customs House Agent - Regulation 19 of the CHALR, 2004 - The Customs House Agent shall exercise such supervision as may be necessary to ensure the proper conduct of any such employees in the transaction of business as agents and be held responsible for all acts or omissions of his employees in regard to their employment.- It is very clear that the CHA should exercise such supervisions as necessary to ensure the proper conduct of such employees. The argument of the appellant that they are not responsible for the conduct or antecedents of the person sought to be appointed to act on behalf of the exporter is not acceptable. The appellants cannot be exonerated on this count - Decided against the assessee.
-
2011 (5) TMI 393 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Application for Rectification of mistake - the ground that the order directing release of gold on fine and penalty was not at all possible at that stage, as the gold has been disposed of. The prayer therefore, is for direction to return the sale proceeds of the gold after realization of duty, fine and penalty - held that:- there is no error apparent on record’of Tribunal’s Final Order which has only reduced the penalty on him. - the claim of the respondents that they should be given back the entire sale proceeds without deducting the duty amount is unreasonable, contrary to the specific provisions of Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 as well as the scheme of Customs Law which requires duty to be recovered for all imported goods taken for domestic consumption. - Application rejected
-
2011 (5) TMI 389 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Payment of compensation by the customs department - sum of Rs. 1,50,000/- as costs of the seized goods and compensation for mental torture caused to writ petitioner/respondent. - The grounds canvassed by the appellants counsel that the loss and damage to the goods was not caused due to the fault of the officers of the Department, but due to non-listing of the application filed by the Department, for clarification of the order passed in 1999, do not at all appeal - However, fact remains that due to mishandling of the entire situation and inaction on the part of the appellants, the goods got damaged and consequently, the respondent had to sustain loss and injury, for which he has been rightly held to be entitled to adequate compensation - Petitioner/respondent was entitled to all the seized articles, in question - However, admittedly, the seized goods, in question, got damaged and destroyed, consequently, it could not be returned to the petitioner/respondent - Therefore, the award of compensation made by the learned single Judge in the impugned order is reasonable and justified.
-
2011 (5) TMI 375 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Confiscation - classification and valuation - The petitioner filed seven bills of entry for clearing the said goods in 31 containers on different dates in January 2011 but the custom authorities did not allow clearance on the ground that the material so imported was not scrap but re-rollable metal attracting 5% basic custom duty - On furnishing a declaration in the form of an affidavit that the party will not challenge the value and identity of the seized goods during the course of adjudication or prosecution proceedings, if any whether continued detention of goods can be justified - Mere fact that condition of 10% of bank guarantee was upheld by this Court in T.L. Verma and M/s. Kundan Rice Mills cannot be justification to impose such conditions in each and every case - Mere fact that there is a power to confiscate does not mean that such power could be exercised mechanically or arbitrarily - The department has not shown prima facie case for exercise of power of confiscation and has only relied upon existence of power - Held that: the requirement of bank guarantee equal to 25% of the value of goods is clearly arbitrary and mala fide and the said condition cannot be sustained - Decided in favour of the assessee
-
2011 (5) TMI 372 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Suspension of a CHA licence - Misuse of lincene - Hence licence has been suspended by order dated 14.7.2008 and it is almost three years since the suspension - Appellant submits that no enquiry has been initiated so far - As considerable time has elapsed since the suspension, direct that the Commissioner should immediately, on receipt of this order, appoint an enquiry officer and the enquiry proceedings be completed within a period of three months from the date of this order - Full opportunity should be afforded to the appellant to present their defence and a decision on the matter be taken based on the enquiry report and the submissions made by the appellant - Thus, the appeal is disposed of.
-
2011 (5) TMI 368 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Refund - Notification No.28/99-Cus dated 28.02.99 - Classification - issue in respect of leviability of SAD stand decided against them by the Tribunal in the case of Ghaziabad Ship Breakers Vs CC (2002 -TMI - 51598 - CEGAT, COURT NO. II, NEW DELHI). It stand held in the said decision that inasmuch as the ship imported for breaking is not for sale as such , the same is for sale of material obtained after breaking it up, the benefit of notification cannot be extended - Held that: exemption from payment of SAD in terms of Notification No.56/98-Cus,dt.1.8.98 as amended, is not available to the appellant It was held that the drinks and foodstuff not to be treated as ship stores, covered by Section 87 of Customs Act, 1962 and have to be classified in their own appropriate headings - Appeal is rejected
-
2011 (5) TMI 288 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Confiscation - Demand - Diversion of goods imported under advance licence - Goods (coils) removed after cutting and slitting into sheets - Notification Nos.51/2000 dated 27/04/2000 and 43/2002 dated 19/04/2002 - Held that: - it is evident that the ground on which duty has been demanded is that the cutting and slitting of coils into sheets does not amount to manufacture and, therefore, the imported materials have been diverted as such albeit they have been subjected to the process of cutting and slitting and, therefore, the appellant is not entitled for the benefit of duty exemption under the various Customs notifications applicable to goods imported under the advance licensing scheme - the matter has to be go back to the adjudicating authority for denovo consideration in the light of the additional ground and evidences submitted by the appellants - appeal is allowed by way of remand
-
2011 (5) TMI 252 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Provisional assessment - Differential duty - appellant is not disputing the fact that the bill of entry was finally assessed and the value was allotted 1741 Per MT - No doubt that the said enhancement of the value by the Superintendent was without affording any opportunity to the assessee but the same can be a ground of appeal before the higher appellate forum and cannot itself be made the basis as if no order of final assessment has passed on bill of entry - The bill of entry having been finally assessed, the consequence of the same is required to be followed - Held that: non filing of appeal against the letter of the Superintendent should not be considered as a bar for subsequent filing of refund claim, inasmuch as a letter issued by the Superintendent is not appealable - Appeal is rejected
-
2011 (5) TMI 161 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Cancellation of Essentiality Certificate - Notification No.21/2002 dated 132002 - Whether the petitioner No.2 is a subcontractor of ONGC or not is not a relevant criteria for issuing the Essentiality Certificate - Once it is found by the DGH that the goods are required for petroleum operations, then the DGH cannot refuse to issue the Essentiality Certificate - DGH had issued the Certificate, but after import, purported to cancel the Certificate not on the ground that the imported goods are not required for petroleum operations, but on the ground that the benefit of the Notification is not available to the importer in the present case - DGH could not have cancelled the Certificate on the ground that the benefit of the Notification is not available to the importer since Condition No.29(c) of the Notification No.21/02 is not fulfilled in the present case, the benefit of Notification No.21/02 would not be available - if the imports were made on permanent basis so as to use the imported goods not only for the approved ONGC project but also for other projects, then the benefit of the Notification would not be available - So long as the goods imported by the petitioner No.2 are required for petroleum operations and are in fact used by the petitioner No.1 for the petroleum operations, the question of canceling the Essentiality Certificate does not arise at all - In the present case, the petitioner No.1 is the subcontractor who is in fact executing the petroleum operations for and on behalf of the ONGC - Decided in the favour of the assessee
-
2011 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT
Differential duty - The appellants have filed the present appeal being aggrieved by the aforesaid order in respect of which it is being contended that the aforesaid order passed by the High Court is erroneous as the amount for which the bond is to be furnished by the respondents is on the lower side - the goods of the respondents shall be cleared by the appellants herein on the respondents' furnishing a bank guarantee of 30% of the differential duty to the satisfaction of the Commissioner of Customs - The appeal stands disposed of
-
2011 (5) TMI 144 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Appeal u/s 130 - Confiscation and penalty - the evidence collected from the Transport Company also had shown that the goods were booked in the name of the respondent - the Respondent has discharged the burden of proving that the goods seized are not smuggled goods and that they purchased those from their seller who lawfully acquired ownership of those goods - in this case the test reports of the seized goods substantially tally with the descriptions of those indicated in the invoices produced before the Customs authority - Accordingly the appeal is dismissed
-
2011 (5) TMI 134 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS (CENTRAL EXCISE, CUS
Classification - Notification No. 39/96-Cus dated 23.7.1996 - Customs Duty Exemption Certificate (CDEC) - since the goods imported by the applicant will be used as parts of aircrafts, the same would be eligible for classification under a more specific description as parts of aircrafts under heading 8803 of the First Schedule - the applicant was explained the basis adopted by the Department for the classification under HSN of the various parts proposed to be imported by the applicant - the applicant has revised the HSN classification of the goods which they intend to import and sell in India and therefore there were no disputed classifications - Decided in the favour of the assessee Regarding exemption - whether the applicant can be said to have fulfilled the conditions specified against Serial No.10 by furnishing a duty exemption certificate obtained by it from the HAL in the form described in the application - As a result of the amendment, imports by State Governments were taken out of the scope of the said exemption, whereas Public Sector Undertakings (PSUs) under the Ministry of Defence or sub-contractors of such PSUs were allowed to import goods under the said notification - The exemption shall apply only if the certificate contains the prescribed information and is signed by an officer not below the rank of a Joint Secretary to the Government of India in the Ministry of Defence.
-
2011 (5) TMI 95 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Confiscated goods - Re-exported - Imported goods were not fulfilling the provisions of imported policy of ITC and Food Adulteration Rules, 1955 - the original adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of imported and gave the permission to re-export the goods on payment of redemption fine and imposed penalty - Revenue contention that the goods liable for confiscation cannot be re-exported - Held that: The apex court has dealt with the similar case [Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata vs. Grand Prime Limited (2003 -TMI - 46603 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA)], held that the exporter had the title of the goods and was entitled to re-export is not sustainable - There is no provision for re-export in such cases - Hence, allow the appeal of the Revenue.
-
2011 (5) TMI 83 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Demand - Transaction value - Rule 5 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 - the contracted price was the price prevalent in the international market at the time of entering into the arrangement or there was fluctuation in the international price of the imported goods - In the absence of any evidence to show any flow back of money from the importers to their supplier, the rejection of the invoice price, which is duly supported by the purchase order and the sales confirmation, cannot be upheld on the sole ground that the appellant has not been able to substantiate their plea that the said commodity s price is open to fluctuations - Appeals are allowed
-
2011 (5) TMI 75 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
DEPB Scheme - The cancellation letter which has been issued recently was obviously not before the authorities below when they have passed the impugned orders - Neither the Authorized Officer who has issued the initial letter of rejection nor the lower appellate authority who has passed the impugned Order-in-Appeal were authorized under the said circular dated 16.1.2004 to deal with a case of conversion of Shipping Bills from one export promotion scheme to another export promotion scheme - The appeal is thus allowed by way of remand
-
2011 (5) TMI 68 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Confiscation - Imported goods - Rule 3(k), Rule 5 & 6 - The contention of the assessee that they do not import batteries for the purpose of sale but for captive consumption (for UPS) and that it has been verified by the Superintendent of Central Excise, Perungudi Range that goods imported under the six Bills of Entry,have been received by the assessees and are still available in their warehouse premises - Therefore they are not required to obtain one time registration with the Ministry of Environment and Forests, in the light of Rule 3(k), Rule 5 & 6 - Hence, set aside the impugned order and allow the appealin favour of assessee
|
