Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 204 Records
-
2017 (11) TMI 2036
Non-service of SCN - Seizure of goods - goods have been seized but no seizure order has been served upon him - HELD THAT:- It is to be noted that upon furnishing personal bond in pursuance of the order of this Court dated 06.06.2017, the goods have been released. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner submits that since seizure order has not been served, no further proceeding can be initiated by the authority.
The writ petition is disposed of with direction to the respondents concerned that, in case, seizure order has not been served upon the petitioner till date, the same shall be served upon the petitioner within two weeks from today.
-
2017 (11) TMI 2024
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal - Declining to compound the offence qua the petitioner under Section 137 of the Customs Act, 1969 - HELD THAT:- The petitioner has the remedy of filing an appeal before the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Tribunal and a further remedy of appeal against the order that may be passed by the Tribunal to the Appellate Tribunal. No reasons have been put forth by the learned Counsel for the petitioner for by passing these efficacious remedies.
On this ground alone, the Writ Petition is dismissed without adjudicating the same on the merits of the case and with liberty to the petitioner to avail the afore-mentioned remedies at her option.
-
2017 (11) TMI 2011
Clandestine diversion of AGU for industrial use or not - grant of personal hearing - examination/cross-examination of relevant witnesses, allowed or not - permission to petitioner to adduce further evidence - HELD THAT:- Material on record suggests that the adjudicating authority referred to and relied upon the statements of various witnesses to prove the allegations against the noticees. While filing reply to the show cause notices, the petitioners applied for cross-examination of such witnesses citing reasons. The adjudicating authority did not dispose of such a request but proceeded further with the hearing of the show cause notices. In the final order of adjudication, he dealt with such a request rejecting it primarily on the grounds that the cross-examination of investigating officers of the department is not necessary. The petitioners having made confessional statements crossexamination of other witnesses would not be necessary.
Even counsel for the department could not build a case that the adjudicating authority had placed no reliance on the statements of the witnesses whose cross-examination the petitioners wanted but the adjudicating denied. That being the position, it was necessary that the petitioners be allowed cross-examination of such witnesses at least on sample basis. It is not possible for us to segregate the nature of evidence on record and come to the conclusion that even in absence of the statements of these witnesses, the findings of the adjudicating authority can be salvaged. The adjudicating authority not having undertaken any such exercise it would neither be possible nor appropriate on our part to do so.
The impugned orders are vitiated on the ground of cross-examination of witnesses not being allowed though applied for and that adjudicating authority relying upon the statements of such witnesses in the final order of adjudication - Only on the ground of not permitting cross-examination of the members of panel, in the opinion of the Court, did not vitiate the order of confiscation against the petitioner.
Proceedings are remanded to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration and disposal in accordance with law - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1995
Jurisdiction - power to issue SCN - officers of DRI are proper officer to issue SCN or not - HELD THAT:- The fact of the case regarding the issue of show-cause notices and adjudications are linked to preliminary objection with reference to jurisdiction to initiate proceedings, is admitted. As regards the objection of the Revenue, to list the appeals again for some other day, it is noted that in the face of the admitted facts as above, and the issue involved is one of preliminary legal point of issue, we note the appeal themselves can be disposed of, as there could be no submissions on merits of the case, from either side. In view of the admitted position and pending legal dispute before the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is found that all these appeals are to be allowed by way of remand by setting aside the impugned orders.
Reliance can be placed in the case of ITC INFOTECH INDIA LTD. VERSUS CC, NEW DELHI [2017 (8) TMI 1639 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that It has been ruled by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Mangali Impex Ltd. Vs. Union of India [2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT] that the D.R.I. Officers are not competent to issue the show cause notice for the period prior to 08.04.2011. In similar such cases, various Benches of the Tribunal such as, Delhi, Chennai & Calcutta have set aside the impugned orders and remanded the matter to the original authority for deciding the issue of jurisdiction and thereafter to decide on the merits of the case, upon pronouncement of the judgment by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangali Impex.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1983
Jurisdiction - Customs authorities have jurisdiction over the SEZ irrespective of any provision in SEZ Act or not - HELD THAT:- On the previous occasion it was observed that necessary rule under Section 21 of the SEZ Act, 2005 was framed and notified in Gazette of India on 5-8-2016 to take cognizance the offence committed under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 to be an offence committed under SEZ Act, 2005. It is well-settled position of law that no penalty can be imposed on commitment of an alleged offence under Customs Act, 1962 without authority of law prior to 5-8-2016 to take cognizance thereof under SEZ Act - If contention of the Revenue is accepted that shall bring chaos to the implementation provisions of the SEZ Act prior to coming into force thereof. While notification is part of statute, it cannot be said that without such notification there was power vested on Customs authorities to penalize an action not cognizable under SEZ Act, 2005. On such legal premise, all appeals are allowed.
It is also settled principle of law that the Gazette being an official document of the Government to convey its intention and decision, without such decision, it cannot be presumed that the authorities were vested with the power before the date of issuance of such notification - Appeal allowed.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1956
Restoration of petition - Refund claim - it was held by High Court that the Court sets aside the impugned orders dated 19th January 2016 and 14th January, 2016 respectively and restores the said claims of the Petitioners to the file of the Assistant Commissioner (Refund) for a fresh decision on merits - HELD THAT:- No stay.
Tag with Civil Appeal No. 2960 of 2010.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1952
Misdeclaration of goods - The goods had actually originated from Taiwan and Korea but were falsely claimed to have originated from Singapore for claiming exemption - penalty - It was held by Gujarat High Court that all such certificates were forged - HELD THAT:- The SLP is dismissed.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1951
Classification of imported goods - Electrical/Gas Calcinations as well as Gas Calcined Anthracite Coal (CGA and ECA) through the EDI Systems - to be classified under CTH 2701 11 00 or under CTH 3824 90 90? - HELD THAT:- The coal has undergone the process of calcinations does not alter the nature of the product as anthracite coal. The process of calcinations itself is a common treatment process applied to many solid materials. It is commonly used in Metallurgy to concentrate ore and remove hydrates and carbonates as per the ratio laid down in the case of 20 MICRONS LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, RAJKOT [2005 (11) TMI 144 - CESTAT, MUMBAI].
From the record, it also appears that calcine is the natural form and the same was applied in the instant case - there are no reason to interfere with the impugned order and the same is sustained - appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1891
Suspension or revocation of the approval granted to the Appellant as custodian - HELD THAT:- The appeal admitted on substantial questions of law.
The matters are fixed for final hearing on 29th November, 2017.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1884
Provisional Release of seized goods - export of the same through Petrapole Land Customs Station - confiscation - penalty - HELD THAT:- The appellant claimed the seized goods but thereafter withdrew his claim for the ownership of the goods. The documents submitted by the appellants are found to be illicit in nature. The Commissioner (Appeals) observed that the export documents are not matching with the seized records. There is a dispute on the claim of the ownership of the goods and therefore, seizure and confiscation of goods are justified - however, the quantum of the redemption fine and penalty are excessive, and is reduced.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1849
Maintainability of petition - monetary amount involved in the appeal - HELD THAT:- In view of the small amount of revenue involved (₹ 4.19 lakhs approximately), we are not inclined to interfere with the impugned order - SLP dismissed.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1834
Prohibited goods or not - Betel Nuts - Confiscation - it was alleged that declared CIF value is less than ₹ 110 per Kilogram specified for Free Import by DGFT in the Notification No. 12(RE- 2013)/2009-2014 dt. 13/05/2013 - HELD THAT:- The question whether the betel nuts are liable for confiscation by declaring value which were lesser than the price fixed by the DGFT in the Notification, came up before the Hyderabad Bench of this Tribunal in the case of International Seaport Dredging Ltd. v. C.C. & S.T., Visakhapatnam [ 2016 (11) TMI 176 - CESTAT HYDERABAD ]. The Tribunal took the view that inasmuch as the goods were cleared after collecting duty on the basis of the tariff value, it cannot be held that the goods are prohibited.
The betel nuts which were imported by declaring prices which were lesser than the minimum import price specified by the DGFT cannot be held as import of prohibited goods. Consequently, the confiscation of the goods is set aside along with the order for payment of redemption fine and penalty. However, the duty paid as per the tariff value is upheld - Appeal allowed in part.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1822
Permission for withdrawal of Petition - HELD THAT:- Permission granted. Petition is dismissed as withdrawn.
Date of 24.01.2018 stands cancelled - Application disposed of.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1807
Maintainability of appeal - Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - Held that:- There is no substantial question of law arises for decision in this appeal under Section 35-G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - this appeal is dismissed in limine.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1795
Confiscation of warehoused goods - redemption fine - penalty - expiry of warehousing period, which is not extended - Held that:- In violation of the warehousing bond executed by them, the appellant has failed to clear the goods even after expiry of the warehousing period. Such goods are to be deemed as improperly removed in terms of Section 72(1)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the goods are liable to be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Act - Confiscation upheld - quantum of redemption fine and penalty reduced - appeal allowed in part.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1792
Illegal export to Nepal - evasion of tax - confiscation - redemption fine - penalties - Held that:- The fact of illegal export of the Indian made goods, stands established from the records and in fact is not being denied. The only explanation coming forward is that the said illegal route was adopted by the appellants so as to avoid Nepal tax.
Though there is no tax applicable in India sought to be evaded by such illegal export, but the fact remains that the Indian clothes were being exported through an illegal route, thus, justifying their confiscation - confiscation upheld - redemption fine reduced from ₹ 8.00 lakhs to ₹ 4.00 lakhs on the ground that there was no evasion of Customs Duty.
Seizure of vehicle - Held that:- There is no evidence on record to show that the owner or driver of the said vehicle, knew the mala fide design of the exporter, but the vehicle having found to be carrying goods, which were actually exported through an illegal route, is liable to confiscation - redemption fine reduced.
Penalty on Shri Dhanush Shah - Held that:- He was carrier of the goods on behalf of various persons of Nepal and admittedly was involved in illegal export of the goods, thus, justifying imposition of penalty upon him - Keeping in view that he himself was not exporter, penalty reduced from ₹ 1.00 lakh to ₹ 50,000/-.
Penalties imposed upon the other persons - Held that:- They are either driver/owner of the vehicle or the proprietor of the shops from whom the goods stands purchased by Shri Dhanush Shah, there is no evidence on record to show that the said persons were in any way connected with the illegal export or knew that the goods purchased from their shops is going to be illegally exported - the imposition of penalty on either of them, is neither justified nor warranted - penalty set aside.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1791
Mis-declaration and mis-classification of imported goods - Non-texturised Polyester Lining Fabric - test reports found that the goods were 100% polyester woven fabrics and having 40% textured yarn and 59% non-textured yarn - the classification of the goods was proposed by the Department under sub-heading 5407 69 00, whereas the importer clarified that the goods are rightly classifiable under sub-heading 5407 61 90 - Held that:- The license, which has been submitted by the importer, covered the broad category of the goods under heading 5407. Inasmuch as the goods which are imported and tested, have been found to be classified under heading 5407, the license will cover the same - the impugned order is set aside and the goods may be cleared duty free under the import license - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1789
Smuggling or not - Cut Betel Nuts - non-notified goods - appellants submitted that mere running away of the driver at the time of interception of the conveyance would not tantamount that the goods are of smuggled nature - Held that:- The appellants produced the purchase documents. It has also particularly produced the Custom’s auction documents in respect of the purchase of the seized material. No verification was conducted.
The case of the Revenue is that, that seized goods were coming from Rascaul side and going to Kotwa, whereas the appellant claimed that it was purchased in Patna - the goods cannot be seized and confiscated merely depending on transport route without verification of the documents.
The confiscation of the seized goods and imposition of penalty is not justified - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1788
Release of confiscated goods - import of coal - benefit of N/N. 12/2012 - whether the applicant is eligible for the benefit of notification No. 12/2012-Cus. or otherwise? - Held that:- It is undisputed that confiscated quantity of coal i.e. 14,801 MT is allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine and the said goods are still lying in the port. No useful purpose will be served if the goods are lying in port and cannot be utilised by the appellant and also occupying valuable space.
The appellant vide their letter dated 13-1-2016 addressed to the Principal Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam, had volunteered to pay the differential duty applicable in respect of the confiscated coal along with interest and also redemption fine as imposed by the adjudicating authority, but under protest. In our view, the lower authorities should have accepted this fair offer of the appellant, keeping in view the fact that entire Order-in-Original is contested before the Tribunal on merits, we find that the appellant should be permitted to clear the quantity of 14,801.52 MT imported coal “coke breeze” on payment of proportionate duty liability along with interest and payment of redemption fine of ₹ 2.50 crores as imposed by adjudicating authority.
As regards application No. C/EH/30101/2017, we find that the Division Bench at Hyderabad is not functioning in its full strength due to vacancy of Member (Technical) and application will be taken up as and when Division Bench is constituted. Accordingly, this application is dismissed with the liberty to appellant to file the same as and when Division Bench starts functioning regularly.
Applications disposed off.
-
2017 (11) TMI 1749
Review petition – stay application - Held that:- Identical issue decided in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) , KOLKATA VERSUS M/S. ENTERPRISE INTERNATIONAL LTD., M/S. AAHANA COMMERCE PVT. LTD., M/S. CHEMSILK COMMERCE PVT. LTD. [2016 (9) TMI 74 - CESTAT KOLKATA], where it was held that In view of dismissal of the review petition of the department by Apex Court by order dated 15.07.2016, appeals filed by the department are not sustainable - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
........
|