|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 241 to 246 of 246 Records
-
2015 (12) TMI 55 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Classification of goods - Bituminous coal or Steam coal - Held that:- Since the entire amount of duty and interest has been paid and in the case of Coastal Energy Pvt. Ltd and others Vs CC Visakhapatnam vide [2014 (8) TMI 246 - CESTAT BANGALORE] we have already a take a view that only duty and interest within the normal period would be payable and demand for extended period, penalty and confiscation etc. are not sustainable, we consider that the matter can be remanded at this stage itself treating the amount deposited by the appellant as sufficient. Accordingly the matter is remanded to the original authority - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 54 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Valuation of goods - Enhancement in value of goods - additions of freight and insurance. - Held that:- It is appropriate that the adjudicating authority should examine evidences such as Chartered Accountant certificate, copies of Bills of Entry of the appellant and unrelated third party, agreements with the same supplier etc for finalization of assessment. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order. Matter is remanded back to the adjudicating authority to decide afresh after considering the evidences in accordance with law. At this stage, Ld. AR submitted that along with the questionnaire, Bills of Entry were submitted by the appellant and comparative chart was given by them. We direct the adjudicating authority to consider all these documents. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 4 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Detention of assets - violation of principles of natural justice and fair play. - Allegation of Smuggling of consignment seized including Luxury Car, Luxury Wrist Watches, Assorted jewellery, pieces of fur of wild animals and cash - whether the impugned order extending the time limit under Section 110(2) is legal and proper and whether the officers of DRI had sufficient time and opportunity for investigating into the details of the assets detained vide Panchanama dated 6.12.2013, and further investigation only a few days before the issue of show-cause notice for extension of further time for issue of show-cause notice, vide notice dated 2.6.2014.
Held that:- Competent officers of Customs, or in any area adjoining the land frontier or the coast of India, has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation, or any documents or things, which in his opinion will be useful or relevant to any proceedings under this Act, are secreted in any place, he may himself or through other officers search for such documents, goods or things. The provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (5 of 1898), relating to searches shall, so far as may be, apply to searches under this section subject to the modification that sub-section (5) of section 165 of the said Code shall have effect as if for the word Magistrate, wherever it occurs, the words Commissioner of Customs were substituted. - It is evident from perusal of the panchanama dated 6.12.2013 that no condition precedent as required under Section 110 of the Act, is recorded at the time of detaining the goods/assets found to the effect that subject goods are liable for confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act. Further no satisfaction have been recorded as required under sub-section 3 of the Section 110 to the effect that the documents or things detained will be useful or relevant to any proceeding for detaining seized assets under the Customs Act.
Revenue had sufficient time for conducting inquiry and or issue of show-cause notice under Section 124 within a period of six months from the date of detention of the goods. It is evident on the face of record that the investigation officers have done practically very little or nothing in spite of the appellant being available for the purpose of inquiry right from 7.12.2013 till 10.2.2014 being the period of judicial custody. Further, during the said custody, the DRI have never sought permission to interrogate the appellant. Even after the release from the judicial custody, the appellant was attending the office of the DRI every week particularly on Monday and such other days as he may have been advised. Further, the appellant and his family members had approached the Revenue authority for release of the goods by filing a detailed representation as to the nature and their source on 24.2.2014, but no inquiry seems to be made in the matter and the investigating authority chose about two weeks prior to the end of time limit of six months, have ventured to make further inquiry about the detained assets by recording statement and asking for further details like Bank statement and other documents.
Detention of the goods/assets in question is bad under the provisions of Section 110 as the goods/assets have only been detained and not seized as required under the scheme of the Act. We further take notice of this fact that so far the two cars in question is concerned, major part of the purchase price have been funded through Banking finance and further the other payments made by the appellant and/or his company are through the Banking channel. - order for provisional release of the cars asking for 100% Bank Guarantee of the invoice value is also bad in law and on the facts. Thus, in the facts and circumstances, we hold that impugned order is bad in law and in facts and accordingly, the same is set aside. We further direct the learned Commissioner and/or the DRI to release the detained goods of the appellant and their family members after obtaining PD Bond and/or Indemnity Bond, that the appellant and other persons will not alienate the assets returned to them and/or any way deal with them without prior permission of the Commissioner of Customs. The goods are to be returned forthwith, within a maximum period of 20 days from receipt of a copy of this order.
As the appellant is a noticee in the show-cause notice dated 13.1.2014 in the case of alleged smuggling of Red Sanders, we permit the Revenue to retain the cash seized on 6.12.2013 from the residence/premises of the appellant and his relatives, which shall be liable to appropriation upon adjudication of the said notice dated 13.1.2014. We further direct the Revenue to keep the said amount detained in a separate Bank account/PD account bearing interest pending adjudication. - Decided partly in favour of appellant.
-
2015 (12) TMI 3 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Waiver of pre deposit - 100% EOU - Clandestine manufacture and clearance of goods - DTA Clearances - Clearance of goods in the name of fictitious units - exemption on capital goods under Notification No. 53/97-Cus - Held that:- on the basis of evidences unearthed by the investigation, it is revealed that the Applicant M/s Vatan Textiles Ltd have manufactured final products i.e. fabric and cleared clandestinely in the domestic market without payment of excise duty. The said Applicant with systematic modus operandi, in the guise of clearance of goods from M/s Loomcraft and M/s Fabricart, manufactured and cleared goods to various customers clandestinely. Claim of the group companies i.e. M/s Loomcraft and M/s Fabricart that the goods alleged to have been manufactured by M/S. VTL were manufactured on job work basis on their behalf, got demolished on the basis of enquiries conducted with the so called job workers, where it was found that there exist no such job worker or they do not have any loom to manufacture of fabric. The so called job workers in their statements clearly stated that they did not carry out any job work on behalf of M/s Loomcraft and M/s Fabricart.
Goods manufactured by the Applicant M/S. VTL is neither exported nor cleared on payment of excise duty and without the permission of the development commissioner. The Applicant cleared said manufactured goods clandestinely without payment of duty. Thus the Applicant(VTL) appears to have grossly violated the conditions of the exemption notification No.53/97-Cus. Therefore in our view the demand of custom duty confirmed on the capital goods is prima facie correctly demanded. As regards claim of the Applicant for depreciation in the valuation for calculation of custom duty, we are of the view that once vital conditions of the notification is not complied with, the Applicant is not eligible for the exemption notification. The depreciation provision being part of the said notification shall also not be prima facie available. M/s Loomcraft and M/s Fabricart are directly involved in abeting and aiding the evasion of excise and custom duty committed by VTL. - Applicants have not made out prima facie case for full waiver of the pre-deposit. - Partial stay granted.
-
2015 (12) TMI 2 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Suspension of CHA license - Denial of duty free benefit - Misdeclaration - absence of the ITC (HS) Code number relating to Cocoa powder in the amendment sheets issued by DGFT against the original DFIA Licences - Held that:- It is quite obvious from the remarks of the Assessing Officer (AC)that the assessment was done in full consciousness of the facts of the case. We fail to see how the extended period can be invoked even under the Customs Act for demanding duty. We also fail to understand how suppression of facts or mala fide intention can be alleged on the part of the importer and, more importantly, the CHA, when all the facts were clearly before the Customs authorities. The case under the Customs Act is not before us. The case before us relates to suspension of CHA License in connection with the same imports. We find the allegations against the CHA are not supported by facts.
We do not find mis-representation by the CHA of any facts. The CHA s role is to present all the documents before the assessing authority which they did. And the assessing authority passed the assessment order in complete knowledge of the facts as well as with knowledge of the CESTAT order in the case of M/s. Kushalchand & Co. (2010 (10) TMI 239 - CESTAT, BANGALORE). The endorsements were made by the assessing officer on the face of the Bill of Entry on the basis of CESTAT judgement which has become final. It (CESTAT) judgement was not challenged and therefore became binding on all lower authorities including Customs officers and the Customs Brokers. Judicial discipline requires the department to follow rulings rendered by higher judicial fourms. Therefore no action is warranted against the CHA. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of appellant.
-
2015 (12) TMI 1 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Valuation of goods - valuation of 10 varieties of Integrated Circuits and 6 varieties of transistors imported under Bill of Entry dated 8.9.2003 - Held that:- Assessable value cannot be determined on the basis of quotation. Quotations are merely indicative price having no relevance as to the Country of Origin, which is admittedly not mentioned on the quotation. With respect to the IC No. 0800HCN, (Sr. No. 2 of Annexure-B to show-cause notice), the Revenue has relied on the NIDB website, wherein the number of ICs are not reflected at all, whereas under the Bill of Entry, the Country of Origin is other than Japan. In the case of Bill of Entry No. 655048 relied upon by the Revenue, copy of the same have not been supplied to the appellant leading to violation of principles of natural justice and the finding is thus perverse. In another Bill of Entry as relied upon by the Revenue, the quantity is only 300 of M/s Shreeji, whereas the quantity imported by the appellant is 10,000 and there is also difference in Country of Origin. It is something different and/or short with respect to comparison adopted by the Revenue for the purpose of under-valuation. - Revenue has not discharged the burden to establish under-valuation as required under the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. In this view of the matter, we reject the value adopted by the Revenue - Decided in favour of assessee.
....
|
