|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 1794 Records
-
2016 (12) TMI 1108 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Redemption fine - Penalty - smuggled gold bars/jewellery - Revision order - Held that: - the Hon'ble Division Bench of High Court of Punjab and Haryana in the case of NVR Forgings vs. Union of India reported in [2016 (5) TMI 7 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT] held that the revision by the Central Government entrusted to a Joint Secretary level officer equal to Commissioner is not empowered to pass revisional order against the order passed by the Officer of same rank and therefore the order passed by the revisional authority which was challenged in a writ petition was set aside.
Taking into consideration of the fact that orders have been passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) during September/December 2015, the gold bars/jewellery cannot be endlessly be retained by the Department, more so, when the petitioner has consented before the adjudicating authority as well as the appellate authority who have granted the relief of re-export subject to payment of redemption fine and penalty -
-
2016 (12) TMI 1107 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Demand - Interest - Penalty - Held that: - the petitioner has agreed to deposit entire amount of ₹ 83,49,189/being benefit availed by the petitioner under VKGUY Scheme from the date of “Spices” was deleted / removed from VKGUY Scheme and considering the fact that during the pendnecy of the present petition, in which, initially, petitioner challenged action of the respondent in putting the petitioner in the DEL, the final order has been passed by the First Authority on the show cause notices confirming the demand of ₹ 83,49,189/+ applicable interest and imposing fiscal penalty.
In the meantime, it will be open for the petitioner to submit appropriate application before the appropriate authority to remove the name of the petitioner from the DEL which may be considered by the appropriate authority in accordance with law and on merits at the earliest - Petition partly allowed.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1106 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Release of detained goods - 86 numbers of Hot Rolled Alloy Steel Coils - Held that: - the goods cannot be detained. The purpose of detention has almost been achieved. The test results are available with the Department. What remains to be examined is, how best we can protect the interests of the Department and chances of its quick recovery of the duty, which might be levied against the importer - thus, ends of justice would be better served, by directing the appellants to release the detained goods imported through Bill of Entry No.3371951 to the respondent/writ petitioner, subject to condition that bank guarantee of ₹ 25.00 lakhs given to department, bond to be executed and also respondent/writ petitioner shall promptly participate in the enquiry, initiated pursuant to the show cause notice, dated 17.10.2016 - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1105 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Release of detained imported goods - Axe Oil, 5 different container (bottle) 3ml, 5ml, 10ml, 28ml and 56 ml imported from Singapore - requirement of MRP declaration - Held that: - MRP or RSP is not required to be declared in respect of bottles of 10ml and less than that. Therefore, the Court observed that if there is no requirement for smaller quantities, appropriate orders may be issued for release of the items and in respect of larger quantities, the respondents were granted discretion to pass appropriate orders - petitioner directed to execute a bond for a sum of ₹ 20,00,000/- and furnish Bank Guarantee for a sum of ₹ 2,50,000/- and on complying with both the conditions, the respondents are directed to provisionally release the seized goods under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 - petition allowed - decided partly in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1104 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Classification of imported goods - Low Noise Block Down Converter - classified as Low Noise Block Down Converter under CTH 85437099 or as Universal Single KU Low Noise Booster under CTH 85299090? - Held that: - this Court is of the view that in respect of the identical import, the Commissioner [Appeals], in the Order-in-Appeal No.580/2013 dated 04.04.2013, has accepted the petitioner's classification of the goods as CTH 85437099. That apart, Circular No.13/2013 dated 05.04.2013, also prima facie appears to be fully in favour of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner has been able to establish a prima facie case, which also would lien in favor of the petitioner while considering the aspect of balance of convenience.
Stay of order-in-original dated 05.11.2013 sought for - Held that: - The three cardinal principles which have to be satisfied by the petitioner for being entitled to the grant of stay are [1] prima facie case; [2] balance of convenience; and [3] irreparable hardship.
Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1102 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Confiscation of seized truck, imposition of redemption fine and penalty - Held that: - In terms of Section 115(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, any conveyance used as a means of transport in the smuggling of any goods shall be liable for confiscation only when it was so used in the knowledge of the owner, his agent or person in charge of the conveyance - The Adjudicating Authority observed that the noticees have admitted in their statements that Urea was loaded on the seized vehicle in their conscious knowledge - confiscation is valid - however redemption fine and penalty reduced.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1101 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Seizure - smuggling of the goods - Held that: - It is the accepted premise that the activity of smuggling is not committed in the manner to leave the footprints of such activities in the form of marks and evidences for future convenience of law enforcement authorities, who are to investigate such criminal activities - the purchase of the sale invoices, bank transactions, stock registers produced by M/s. Surana Trading Company, the main notice, did not support the statement made by the noticee respondent Shri Kamal Kumar Surana. The concerned trading license was also found lapsed - The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the Collector of Customs, Madras and Ors. vs. D.Bhoormull [1974 (4) TMI 33 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] also holds that there can be circumstances where direct evidences indicating the smuggling of the goods may not be available but there could be several circumstances of determinative character leading to the conclusion that the seized articles are smuggled goods - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1100 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Validity of order of Original authority - foreign collaboration agreement - non-examination of the relevant documents - Rule 4(3) of CVR, 1988 - Held that: - Revenue’s appeal was allowed only on the ground that the Adjudicating authority passed the order without examination of the relevant documents whereas the Commissioner(Appeals) has not gone into facts and legal issues of the matter therefore appeal was not supposed to be allowed but it should have been remanded to the Adjudicating authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1099 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Valuation - import of a consignment of 79.040 MTs of LLDPE/HDPE mixed granual/powder (floor sweeping) - goods were imported at a price of US$ 225 PMT CIF - on examination goods found to be of US$ 352.35 PMT CIF - Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) on the case being remanded confirmed the valuation done by respondent and held the value at US$ 225 PMT CIF to be correct - whether the contention of the Revenue that the price should be at US$ 352.35 PMT CIF, justified? - Held that: - it is observed that Commissioner(Appeals) has considered the contemporaneous import, various judgments, PLATT price and standing order dated 3-12-1999. Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) found that there is no case of extra commercial consideration that might have influenced the transaction between parties. On going through the detailed discussion of the findings of the Commissioner(Appeals), we do not find any infirmity therein, therefore the same is sustainable - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1034 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Classification of imported goods - Broken Copper Cathode - classified as ‘Waste and Scrap’ of CTH 74040019 for which pre-shipment inspection certificate is required or are classified as Refined Copper under CTH 74.03 - goods confiscated and penalty imposed.
Held that: - not only copper cathodes but ‘Sections of Cathodes’ are also covered under 7403 11 00 as a category of ‘Refined Copper’. Further CTH 7403 19 00 also gives scope for other categories of copper which could be ‘Refined Copper’. As per Rule-1 of the General Rules of Interpretation to the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 classification of imported goods shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relevant section or chapter notes. Under the section and chapter notes there is a definition of ‘Refined Copper’ and a definition for ‘Waste & Scrap’. Nowhere in the Customs Tariff or HSN explanatory notes it is specified that notes for waste and scrap will get precedence over chapter note on ‘Refined Copper’. It is not refuted by the department that broken copper cathodes are not a category of refined copper. Even if imported goods are not considered as ‘Sections of Cathodes’ then also the imported goods could be classified as ‘-Other’ under CTH 7403 19 00 so long as the imported goods satisfy the criteria of ‘Refined Copper’.
The goods imported by the appellant will be classifiable, as a category of ‘Refined Copper’ under CTH 7403 and not as ‘Waste & Scrap’ of CTH 7404 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1033 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
Mis-declaration of description of export goods - confiscation and imposition of fine and penalty - DEPB scheme - Held that: - though there was no intention of availing undue benefit but due to different descriptions on different documents mis-declaration had taken place - confiscation and fine justified.
As regards penalty, it is observed that had there been any intention to avail undue benefit, there would not have been clerical errors in the description given in various connected documents. Therefore, there was no intention to avail undue benefit - penalty set aside.
Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1032 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Classification of imported goods - old and used tyres - hazardous goods or not - whether the tyres imported by the assessee would have to have permission of MOEF for import into the country under Entry B3140? - Held that: - The Tribunal has recorded a clear finding with regard to the item, which is sought to be imported by the assessee that it is not a waste tyre rather it is a re-usable tyre, which falls within the exclusion clause of the entry. The Tribunal, therefore, has rightly come to the conclusion that the imported goods were not hit by the mischief of hazardous waste and could not be defined as hazardous waste and, therefore, their import did not require the permission of the MOEF - re-usable tyres falls within the exclusion clause of the entry - appeal allowed in favor of appellant-assessee.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1031 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Release of bank guarantee - EPCG Scheme - N/N. 44/95 - Held that: - the petitioner is a victim of technicalities. It may be true that on the date when the first respondent adjudicated the show cause notice, the petitioner did not have the requisite certificates. However, the certificates have been issued by the Competent Authority - the certificates are in the possession of the petitioner. Therefore, the petitioner s case should be considered and the certificates should be examined and if they are found to be proper and valid, necessary relief as a consequence thereof should be granted - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1030 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Misdeclaration of value of imported goods - confiscation - Revision of Redemption Fine and Penalty - Held that: - the wrong declaration of value was on account of a mistake by the supplier sending in giving the wrong invoice. However, no mala fide intention can be attributed to the importer - the Bill of Entry was filed declaring the value as 35 Euro [Rs 2583/-However, the goods were found to be valued at Euro 1628. It is also a fact that but for the /customs opening the consignment, the mistake in declaration of value would have gone unnoticed - even though the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(m), there is no justification for imposing any redemption fine and penalty - appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1029 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Valuation of imported goods - rejection of declared value on the ground that the parties were related - related party transaction - Held that: - we find that there is no evidence brought on record that contemporaneous imports were at a higher price and there being one common director of the importers was also a director and supplier in Walltracts, Dubai, had influenced the price. In the absence of any such evidence, we find that the transaction value as declared by the appellant should not have been rejected.
Compliance of provisions of rule 4(3)(a) - Held that: - we do agree with the submission of the Id. counsel that provisions of rule 4(3)(a) needs to be complied, assuming that there is a relationship between the supplier and the appellant herein, the circumstances warrant the same should be examined and the transaction value shall be accepted as the value of the imported goods provided that relationship did not influence the price. In the case in hand, there is nothing on record to show that due to commonality of one director the prices were influenced.
Burden of proof of under invoicing is on the revenue, which has not been done.
The loading of the price by 100% is incorrect and the impugned order is unsustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1028 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Valuation of imported goods - Pistachio - Rule 8 of Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 - enhancement of value on the basis of contemporaneous import - Held that: - The fact that the price of US$ 4.8 per kg is of the Pistachio crop of Nov - Dec, 1999, whereas the appellant’s import of Pistachio is from the crop of 1998 at US$ 3.6 per kg. which is vital fact which should have been considered by the lower authorities - in case of agriculture produce, quality of the goods varies from one of the crop to another particularly edible agriculture produce by lapse of time the product get deteriorated and obviously the price of old stock of agriculture produce will not be equal to the fresh stock of agriculture produce - the comparison with the price of the different goods of different period cannot be held correct - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant-assessee.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1027 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Maintainability of appeal - Time limitation - Held that: - We find that fact is not under dispute that order-in-original against which the appellant filed an appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) was passed on 15.12.1995 - The submission of the Ld. Counsel that the order is not signed does not hold water for the reason that it is attested copy issued by the department wherein it is clearly mentioned that it is copy of the signed order, secondly if there is dispute impugned order that cannot be raised for dealing with the time in filing appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals). As regard the submission being Government factory there should not be levy of duty is subject matter of the merit of the case, which cannot be raised when the appeal itself is not maintainable being time bar before the Commissioner(Appeals) - appeal dismissed.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1026 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Imposition of penalty u/s 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 - penalty imposed based on the statements of Shri Krishna Pal Singh and Shri Goutam Prasad Jaiswal - request for cross-examination not considered - principles of natural justice - Held that: - In the absence of any reasoning for denying the opportunity of cross-examination the case of Shri Prahlad Agarwal is required to be remanded back to the Adjudicating authority for making efforts to extend the cross-examination of the witnesses whose statements are relied upon by the investigation for penal action against the Appellant. Appeal of Shri Prahlad Agarwal is allowed by way of remand to the Adjudicating authority to decide the issue afresh after extending cross-examination of the relied upon witnesses and also by giving an opportunity to the Appellant to explain his case - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Imposition of penalty on other Appellant Shri Subhas Oraon - none appeared on his behalf - Held that: - it is observed that he is not interested in pursuing his Appeal. Accordingly Appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1025 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Quantum of redemption fine - M/s. Nitu Enterprises imported two consignments of ‘Bearings’ of third country origin from M/s.Kumar Trading Co.Ltd. (LLC), Dubai and sought transit of the same to Nepal - consignments were found to be of Russian/Japanese/Police/Romanian origin - on overseas enquiries the addresses of the importer was found to be fictitious - whether the redemption fine imposed is adequate or is needed to be enhanced? - Held that: - It is observed from the case records that declared value of the two consignments, intended to be cleared to Nepal against Customs Transit Declaration(CTD) was ₹ 24,13,642/-. At the time of seizure department estimated the market value of Bearings to be ₹ 1,93,09,139/-. At the time of disposal of the said goods as per the direction of Hon’ble Apex Court an amount of ₹ 1,01,05,990/- was realized and deposited with State Bank of India, Main Branch, Kolkata. Even if the sale proceeds of ₹ 1,01,05,990/- is taken to be the market value of the seized goods then also the margin of profit will be more than 300%. Accordingly Bench is of the considered view that redemption fine imposed by the Adjudicating authority is highly inadequate. In the interest of justice redemption fine is enhanced from ₹ 1.00 Lakh to ₹ 25.00 Lakhs under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 - quantum of redemption fine enhanced - appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue.
-
2016 (12) TMI 1024 - CESTAT, KOLKATA
Imposition of penalty u/s 114 (i) & Sec 114 AA of the Customs Act 1962 - Whether feathers used in the making of silk fabrics, being exported by the appellant, are prohibited Ostrich feathers as per CITES? - certificate of origin - Held that: - Ostrich is a flightless bird of African origin & all the countries specified above in CITES are African countries. If the imported feather were of imitation nature or of non African origin then supplier of the feathers was required to produce a certificate from the appropriate authorities in Spain that the same were of non prohibited nature, to honour international convention on protection of wild flora & fauna. As a signatory to CITES it is the duty of member countries to be strict while dealing with endangered plant & animal species. In the absence of any certificate of origin from the an appropriate authority it can not be said that feathers used in the silk fabrics were from non prohibited area. Export of consignment valued at ₹ 1,51,303/- has thus been correctly confiscated.
Imposition of penalty - Held that: - it is observed that appellant did not play any role when the consignment of feathers was imported & received. The consignment of imported feathers processed through courier Agency was never got cleared by the Appellant - Ostrich feathers are not a prohibited item under wildlife (Protection) Act 1972 - penalty set aside.
Appeal disposed off - decided partly in favor of appellant.
........
|
