|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 1796 Records
-
2016 (12) TMI 1571 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Imposition of penalty u/r 114 of the CA, 1962 on CHA - levy on the ground that the appellant being CHA has not verified the credential of the exporters - Held that: - at the time of filing of shipping bills, the exporter has produced IEC and ICEGATE statements and other 11 documents to verify their address and same was not being disputed. It is not required for the appellant to verify the address of the exporter/importer physically. Therefore, we hold that the appellant has taken due care while processing the export documents to check credentials of the exporter - penalty set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-CHA.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1570 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Revocation of CHA licence - time limitation - enquiry was to be completed by 30.11.2015, the day when 90 daysperiod was over after issue of the SCN, which is dated 31.8.2015. However, in the present case, enquiry was completed on 17.2.2016 - Held that: - there has been a delay of more than two months in preparation and submission of the report, which is the contravention of the Regulation 20(5) of CBLR, 2013 - following the Honble Delhi High Courts decisions in the cases of Indair Carrier Pvt. Ltd. Vs. CC [2016 (5) TMI 775 - DELHI HIGH COURT], where it was held that the time limits in the CHALR 2004 for issuance of the SCN to the CHA licence holder and completion of the inquiry within 90 days of issuance of such SCN are sacrosanct - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1566 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs (Imports) to issue SCN - Time limitation - Penalty - Held that: - To be noted, in Master Stroke, a learned single Judge of this Court has clearly ruled that the period of 90 days provided for issuance of SCN is mandatory - even if, I were to take into account the latter date, which is the date when the order-in original was passed, the impugned SCN issued to the petitioner for revocation of his licence would be way out of time. Therefore, taking into account the position of law and the facts obtaining in this case, I am inclined to allow the Writ Petition - Petition allowed.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1509 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Rectification of mistake - though the Ld. Commissioner has given correct findings in the impugned order but made serious error inasmuch as he has not imposed penalty under Section 114A and wrongly mentioned the Section 27AB for charging interest instead of Section 28AB - Held that: - From the comparison of operative portion of the order and the findings reproduced above, it is apparent that though Ld. Commissioner has given correct findings in above para regarding the imposition of penalty under Section 114A and for charging the interest under Section 28AB in the operative portion of the order, penalty under Section 114A was not imposed and for charging interest. wrong Section 27AB was mentioned instead of correct Section 28AB. Therefore we are of the view that there is apparent and Serious error made by the Ld. Commissioner in the impugned order. Accordingly, we hold that respondent is liable for penalty equal to custom duty under Section 11A of the Customs Act, 1962 and respondent is also liable for payment of interest in terms of Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962 on the Custom Duty of ₹ 1,39,93,825/- - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1508 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Refund of SAD - certain goods were shown to have been sold prior to the date of payment of SAD - no clarifications could be produced in this regard and the error claimed by respondent as clerical error - Circular No.6/2008-Cus. dated 28.04.2008 - Held that: - The respondent has submitted a Certificate from C.A. who certified the financial records of the respondent. In terms of the Circular of CBEC, in an ordinary course the certificate should have been accepted as a proof. However, since a serious discrepancy was found in the invoices total reliance of the certificate is not accepted. We find that the onus of proving that they have paid ST/VAT on the imported goods lies on the respondent. The respondent has sought to discharge the said onus by C.A. certificate as there is a serious discrepancy noticed in the invoice as pointed out by Revenue. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority and the respondents are directed to submit the C.A. certificate along with all documents relied upon by the C.A. in preparing the said certificate - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1507 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Condonation of delay of 114 days - delay due to the reasons that at the time of receipt of the order impugned before the Tribunal, the Consultant was out of country, and thereafter, the managing partner was also out of country and it was also the case on behalf of the appellant-assessee that the father of the Consultant was not well and had passed away and even his wife was suffering from breast cancer - Held that: - the learned Tribunal ought to have condoned the delay in preferring the Appeal since there does not appear to be any deliberate delay and/or negligence on the part of the appellant in not preferring the Appeal within the period of limitation. By not preferring Appeal within the period of limitation, as such, the appellant-assessee was not going to be benefited - delay condoned - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1506 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Implemention of the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I) - Held that: - the Appeal filed by the Department has been dismissed, by order, dated 30.11.2015. Therefore, this Court cannot adjudicate the correctness of the said order in this Writ Petition, when the petitioner seeks for implementation of the order passed in Order-in-Appeal, dated 14.09.2015. Thus, on the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, this Court has no other option, except, to direct the respondents to comply with the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals-I), dated 14.09.2015 - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1505 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Valuation - Wartsila Reconditioned 18V32LN engine no. 21888 with Napier Trubocharger Reconditioned ABB alternator rated at 7600 KVA with AVR - rejection of declared value - rejection on the ground that the Chartered Engineer's certificate issued in the country of export was not acceptable owing to discrepancy with the year of manufacture on the plate affixed to the engine - Held that: - the pre-shipment inspection report issued by Bureau Veritas was examined, and it clearly states that the original manufacturing date of the engine is 10th October 1994 and that of the alternator is 17th October 1995 with the common base plate having been manufactured on the 2nd of April 1996. While Revenue has no issue in accepting the original manufacturing date of the alternator, they do not accord the same credibility to the manufacturing date of the engine as certified in the certificate. Undoubtedly, both the lower authorities are of the view that the certificate does not reflect the date on the plates affixed to the engine. Even if that were an acceptable proposition, the enhancement of value should have been in accordance with the provisions in the Customs Valuation Rules and not by placing reliance on an expert appraiser as has been done by the original authority.
Reliance was placed in the decision of the case of Essar Graphics (P) Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [1998 (8) TMI 250 - CEGAT, MADRAS], where it was held that rejection of value cannot be done merely relying on foreign Chartered Engineer’s certificate
Declared value to be accepted - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1504 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Exports of contraband/ restricted goods - Hashish - imposition of penalty u/s 114 of the CA, 1962 - whole case revolves mainly on the statements of the appellant recorded and certain evidences relied upon by the Revenue - it was claimed by appellant that the statements were taken under coercion and duress - Held that: - it is not only appellants statement alone but there are various corroborative evidences such as categorical statement of Shri. Nitin K Bhanushali who clearly stated that appellant is the main person who was involved in the exports of contraband/ restricted goods - further nothing was found in support of appellant, that the allegations are untrue, and violating the principles of natural justice.
Ld. Commissioner in the denovo adjudication process complied with the principle of natural justice holding that Shri. Haresh Gandhi had aided and abetted Shri. Nitin Bhanushali in the illegal exports and passed a reasoned order of imposition of penalty u/s 114 - imposition of penalty upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1503 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Public charitable trust - import of equipments for diagnostic centre - benefit of Customs Notification No.64/88, dated 1.3.1988 - Held that: - from a reading of the annexures to the writ petition it is apparent that the demand has been raised after a factual satisfaction. That satisfaction is based on inspection, scrutiny and verification of the records and documents provided by the petitioner itself - A conditional exemption is available and can be availed of on tendering proof of satisfaction of the terms and conditions thereof, else the exemption cannot be availed of.
In the instant case, all the terms and conditions of the exemption Notification were made known and voluntarily accepted by the petitioner. It even executed a Bond and also submitted a Bank Guarantee and as noted by us hereinabove - Once being aware of the clear stipulations in the exemption Notification, but failing to satisfy them, the petitioner was not entitled to any exemption. The demand is rightfully raised and deserves to be confirmed.
Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1502 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Release of detained goods - implementation of order of commissioner of customs - principles of judicial discipline - 4 No's gold bars totally weighting 400 grams of gold - Held that: - Once the appellate authority, namely, the Commissioner of Customs has passed the order on 30.06.2015 and without obtaining any order of the stay of the appeal, the respondent should not keep themselves by disobeying the order passed by the appellate authority.
Reliance was placed in the case of Union of India vs. Kamalakshi Finance Corporation [1991 (9) TMI 72 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA], where it was held that the respondent failed to respect the order of the Apex Court and failed to implement the order shows contempt of Court - The Hon'ble Apex Court and this Court in various cases very categorically held that the order of the Joint Commissioner of Customs and the Commissioner of Customs (Appeal) clearly shows that the petitioner has not committed any violation, therefore, they should implement the order of the Commissioner of Customs in a true letter and dispute.
Even mere filing of the revision against the order of appellate authority would not empower the respondent to deny release of the goods in question and the respondent have not given any proper explanation as to why no stay order has been obtained against the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) dated 30.06.2015, even though the said order said to have been challenged by way of further appeal.
Respondent was directed to release the goods - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1501 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
100% EOU - Fulfillment of export obligation - installation of machinery - import under EPCG scheme - Notification No. 49/2000-Cus. dated 27.3.2000 - Held that: - Since the appellants have put the goods imported to use and have partially fulfilled the export obligations, it is not proper to deny the benefit due to partial fulfilment of export obligations and demand the entire duty - Secondly, the duty has been demanded without taking into account the depreciated value. This is not correct. In the present case, the capital goods have been put to use by the appellants. Therefore, at the time of de-bonding, duty can be demanded only on the depreciated value - Further, the non-fulfilment of export obligation is on account of the business conditions prevailing at that time and not on account of any mala fide act. In such circumstances, imposition of penalties is not justified - redemption fine and penalties set aside.
The duties of customs are payable at the time of importation of the goods. Admittedly, the capital goods were imported by the appellant on 28.12.2000 and the same has been in the custody of the appellant; therefore, the appellant is liable to pay duty chargeable as on 20.12.2000. Consequently, the plea of the appellant that depreciated value of the machine is to be taken as basis for the duty is not acceptable.
Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1500 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Valuation of imported goods - PVC coated cloth polyester taffeta - mis-declaration of value of goods as similar goods were imported by VIP Industries at a higher rate - Held that: - the goods imported by VIP Industries is not from the same supplier and the quantity by VIP Industries is far less and in kgs. while the goods imported by the respondent are huge for trading purposes - adjudicating authority has held that there is marginal difference between the declared price and the value proposed to be loaded, that the transportation, handling, charges and margin of profit are not based on any standard formula and a slight difference in these charges would substantiate the declared price. Unless there is substantial difference between the declared price and the value determined after market enquiry loading must be avoided and the transaction value can be accepted - impugned order upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1499 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Issuance of writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned arrest notice dated 6.12.2016 - Sections 132, 135(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that: - in the present case summon was issued on 6.12.2016 under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 to the petitioner to appear on the next date i.e. 7th December, 2016 at 11:30 hours and also to produce the documents and records mentioned in the Schedule at Serial No. 1 to 5 - It is very surprising that on the same day i.e. 6.12.2016 the notice of arrest was also issued to the petitioner by the office of Superintendent (SIIB), Customs Commissionerate, Noida. As such, notice of arrest suffers from non-application of mind, and appear to be arbitrary and unreasonable and is, therefore, liable to be quashed.
Impugned arrest notice quashed - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1498 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Recovery of interest - N/N. 36/97-Cus dated 11/4/1997 - though the appellant was required to execute the bond in respect of duty and interest thereon. However the appellant executed the bond only in respect of duty and there is no mention about interest in the said bond. Even the bond accepting authority has not raised any objection at the time of execution of the bond - Held that: - The identical issue has been decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Jayaswal Neco Ltd [2015 (8) TMI 243 - SUPREME COURT] wherein Hon’ble Apex Court held that when the bond does not contain the terms of payment of interest, recovery of interest cannot be made, despite there is a condition of executing the bond not only for the duty but also for the interest, in terms of notification - demand of interest set aside - the confirmation of demand and appropriation of amount of duty paid by the appellant are maintained - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1440 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Refund of excess fine and penalty paid - time limit for disposal of revision - application for refund were not processed, later on the petitioners have been served with Notices from the Revisional Authority viz. Under Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, New Delhi, stating that the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, has preferred Revision Petitions as against the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs - Held that: - no time limit is fixed for disposal of the Revision Applications filed by the Central Government, the third respondent has to necessarily consider and pass orders on the petitioners' Applications dated 10.03.2016 - there will be a direction to the third respondent to consider the Refund Applications filed by the petitioners dated 10.03.2016, and after affording an opportunity of personal hearing, shall pass orders on merits and in accordance with law - appeal allowed - decided in favor of petitionerx.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1439 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Natural justice - exemption from statutory obligation for submitting extension application - Section 28 of the Customs Act - Held that: - the matter deserves consideration as the learned Counsel for the petitioners is prima facie correct in contending that the demand for the period in question could not have been justified on the face of it in light of the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act. Even assuming for the sake of examining without holding that in a given case, the same is permissible then also, so far as the merit of the demand if concerned, unfortunately, prima facie, there appears to be no justification whatsoever for treating the consumed goods to be goods warranting any extension application - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1438 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction of revisional authority - absolute confiscation - penalty - Held that: - reliance placed on the decision of the case of NVR Forgings vs. Union of India [2016 (5) TMI 7 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT], where it was held that the Joint Secretary of the Central Government has no jurisdiction to decide the revision.
There has not been proper examination as to whether the goods which were brought by the petitioner are prohibited goods - matter is remanded to conduct appropriate examinations and find out that whether the goods in question are prohibited goods and whether they would fall under the definition of Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1961.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1437 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Compliance with condition of Notification No.44(RE-2000)/1997-2002 dated 24.11.2000 - Boll Bearings imported from China - end use test - whether the goods imported were for retail sale or for industrial customers and whether condition of notification need to be fulfilled? - Held that: - I find that there were certain requirements specified by the notification dated 24.11.2000, not complied with by the importer/appellant. However, the importers were eligible to rectify those shortcomings to fulfill the requirements of said Notification dated 24.11.2000 by applying Public Notice No.16/2013, referred to earlier and if the importers are allowed to rectify the shortcomings in the information, required as per said notification No.24.11.2000, before the goods are cleared from Customs Control, there would not be any violation requiring the goods to be confiscated and redeemed - I direct Principal Commissioner of Customs Noida, Customs Commissionerate to allow the importer to fulfill the requirement for compliance of Notification No.44 (RE-2000)/1997-2000 dated 24.11.2000, by pasting stickers on the goods imported when the goods are still under the control of Customs before their clearance and after satisfying that the said requirements have been fulfilled, allow the clearance of goods on payment of appropriate duty of Customs.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1436 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Revocation of CHA licence - forfeiture of security deposit - period of limitation - Held that: - The issue of Show Cause Notice is to be followed within a period of 90 days by submission of Inquiry Report by Asst. Commissioner/Dy. Commissioner and ultimate passing of the order by the Commissioner within a period of 90 days from the date of submission of Inquiry report - the initial Show Cause Notice under Regulation 20 has been issued on 14.09.2012, even though the licence was suspended on 15.02.2010.
In a number of decisions, adherence to time limit strictly has been held - reliance placed on the case of Saro International Freight System Vs. CC, Chennai [2015 (12) TMI 1432 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], where Hon'ble Madras High Court has emphasised the observance of time limits strictly under the CHALR, 2004/CBLR, 2013.
The order of the lower authority which was issued without adhering to the time schedule is liable to be set aside on these grounds - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-CHA.
........
|
