|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 158 Records
-
2017 (8) TMI 1677
Jurisdiction - proper officer to issue SCN - Notice issued by DRI - HELD THAT:- Similar issues have been dealt with in various cases by the Tribunal recently. It is held that the matters have to be remanded back to the original authority for a decision after the legal issue is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
By following the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of BHARAT SANCHAR NIGAM LIMITED VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS [2017 (6) TMI 688 - DELHI HIGH COURT] as well as by considering totality of facts and circumstances, we set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the original adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after the availability of Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case of UNION OF INDIA VERSUS MANGALI IMPEX LTD. [2016 (8) TMI 1181 - SC ORDER] and then on merits of the case but by providing an opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Till the final decision, the status quo will be maintained.
The appeal filed by the assessee is allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1639
Jurisdiction - proper officer to issue SCN - power of D.R.I. Officers to act as ‘proper officer’ for demand proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962 - 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.
Matters are remanded to the Original Authority for deciding the issues involved in the present appeals - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1607
Detention of goods - provisional release of detained goods - It was held by High Court that The drawing of a distinction between seizure of imported goods as a result of undervaluation and seizure of imported goods upon misdeclaration cannot per se be said to be irrational. The goods ordered to be released provisionally subject to conditions.
HELD THAT:- Leave granted.
There shall be stay of the operation of the impugned judgment, in the meanwhile.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1575
Classification - blood along with the term 'liquids' - it was held that this is not one of the processes which would fall as merely separation of liquid from colloidal particles to bring it under the purview of Entry 8421 with the aid of last paragraph falling under Entry 8421 (II)(A).
HELD THAT:- SLP dismissed.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1551
Appeal is admitted on substantial questions of law - Jurisdiction - power of Additional Director General, DRI, Ahmedabad Zonal Unit to issue SCN - HELD THAT:- This Appeal is to be heard along with Writ Petition No. 2338 of 2016.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1541
Revocation of CHA License - the proceedings were conducted pursuant to the said notice which have been culminated in an order dated 27th January, 2017 revoking the licence of the petitioner - HELD THAT:- This writ petition and application are disposed of being rendered infructuous.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1522
Jurisdiction - power of Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) Jodhpur to issue SCN - Competent authority or not - Held that:- The similar issues have been dealt with in various cases by the Tribunal recently - It is held that the matters have to be remanded back to the original authority for a decision after the legal issue is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Mangli Impex vs. Union of India [2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - matter remanded for fresh consideration.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1520
Imposition of Penalty u/s 114A of CA, 1962 - case of appellant is that imposition of penalty is not proper and justified inasmuch as Section 28 ibid has not been invoked for confirmation of the duty demand - whether, in absence of determination of the duty liability by the proper officer, which was not levied or short-levied by reason of wilful misstatement or suppression of fact etc., can the provisions of Section 114A ibid be invoked for imposition of penalty?
Held that:- As per section 114A, imposition of penalty is subject to the condition that there must be determination of the duty liability under Section 28 ibid by the proper officer, which according to him, has been short-levied or non-levied, owing to the reason of suppression, etc. - In this case, it is an admitted fact on record that the original authority has not determined the duty liability on account of short-levy or non-levy of duty in terms of Section 28 ibid. Rather, in terms of non-fulfilment of the conditions of the bond executed by the appellant, the penalty has been imposed under Section 114A ibid - Since there is no adjudication or determination of duty in terms of Section 28 by the proper officer, as per the mandates of Section 114A ibid, no penalty can be imposed on the appellant.
Penalty not warranted - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1513
Penalty on CHA u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Misdeclaration of MRP/RSP for the said goods - Held that:- In any case, on the very same set of facts proceedings have been initiated against the appellant under CBLR, 2013. The said proceedings concluded by the order dated 19-4-2016 issued by Commissioner of Customs (General), New Delhi - in view of categorical finding of the Licensing Authority on the activities of the appellant, which are on the same set of facts involving the same importation, penal action under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act is not legally sustainable.
There is no justification for a penal proceedings against the appellant resulting in penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1512
Valuation of imported goods - Ethyl Alcohol - rejection of declared value - enhancement of declared value - Rule 10A of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 - only basis on which in the present proceedings, such a course of action was taken is that there were certain imports through Mumbai Port which had a value higher by 7.6% - Held that:- The original authority did not elaborate the reasons for resorting to provisions of Rule 6. He has not addressed the submissions of the appellant regarding the contract being entered into in June, 2004 itself. A variation of about 7% spread over a period of over four or five months cannot per se lead to a conclusion that the imported goods are undervalued. Additional corroborative evidences are required in such situation to reject the transaction value and to re-determine the same - In the present case, there is no discussion or finding at all, on this valuation aspects - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1506
Classification of imported goods - External Hard Disc Drives - benefit of N/N. 12/2012-CE dated 1.3.2012 Sl. No. 225 - Department was of the view that removable or exchangeable disc drives do not fall under the classification of 84717020 and these goods are classifiable under CTH 84717030 and therefore is not eligible for the benefit of the notification - Held that:- The issue whether the imported goods are classifiable under CTH 84717020 has been analyzed and discussed in the case of CESTAT, Delhi in M/s. Supertron Electronics Pvt. Ltd. [2017 (1) TMI 1529 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], where it was held in favor of respondent by classifying the goods under CTH 84717020 and the benefit of the notification was extended to the respondents - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1473
Adjournment of the adjudication of the SCN - Failure of fulfill the export obligations - Held that:- Any endorsement made by an employee of the petitioner, while seeking for an adjournment of the adjudication of the show cause notice, cannot forfeit the right of the petitioner to plead for extension of time - in all fairness, the second respondent should consider the petitioner's request for extension made vide various representations - Petition allowed.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1469
Jurisdiction - power to issue SCN prior to 08.04.2011 - Held that:- When an identical case came up before the Tribunal, a view was taken that inasmuch as, the jurisdiction of the DRI is pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, all the matters need to be remanded to the jurisdictional adjudicating authority to first decide the issue of jurisdiction after availability of the Supreme Court’s decision in the case of Mangali Impex Limited - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1462
Liability to pay demurrage charges - whether relief of non-payment of charges should have been restricted till 15-1-2015? - Held that:- The proceedings were pending before the High Court from 15-1-2015 till 14-10-2015. It is during the pendency of these proceedings and in the absence of any interim order passed by the High Court allowing the appellant to clear the goods, it was not possible for the appellant to clear those goods. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the High Court should have held that no charges towards any rent or demurrage are payable till the date of the judgment of the High Court instead of 15-1-2015.
The ends of justice would be subserved by directing that no demurrage charges or rent is payable on the aforesaid goods by the appellant to respondent No. 4. At the same time, respondent No. 4 would be entitled to auction those goods and whatever money is received as a result of that auction, can be appropriated by respondent No. 4.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1401
Whether the CESTAT is right in law in setting aside the order passed in exercise of powers under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 extending the time to issue a cause notice in respect of the goods seized under sub-section (1) of Section 110? - Appeal is admitted on above substantial questions of law.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1399
Valuation - FOB contract on export items - whether FOB price can be treated as cum-duty or not? - Held that:- The issue regarding treating the FOB price as cum-duty is not in favour of the appellant, as per the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in an order in the case of appellant-assessee, M/s. Essel Mining & Industries v. Commr. of C. Ex, Customs & S.T., BBSR-I [2017 (4) TMI 87 - CESTAT KOLKATA] - decided against appellant.
Valuation - enhancement of the value of the goods on the basis of contemporary price - Held that:- Appellant submits that he can submit reply provided the department will supply contemporary documents to appellant - the department is asked to provide documents pertaining to contemporary rate to the assessee-appellant, and appellant will file reply within a period of 3 weeks thereafter.
Appeal decided partly against appellant and part matter on remand.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1397
Classification of imported goods - artificial kidneys into India - Benefit of N/N. 21/2002-Cus dt. 1.3.2002 as amended by N/N. 66/2004 dt. 09.07.2004 - whether classified under CTH 90189031 or under CTH 84212900 - the Department clarified that purifier dialyzers are to be classified under CTH 84212900 and thereby denied the benefit of notification - Held that:- The issue stands decided in the case of SANWAR AGARWAL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT) & OTHERS [2016 (4) TMI 621 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT], where it was held that the natural classification of dialysers should be under CTH 90189031 - benefit of notification cannot be denied - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1395
Principles of Natural Justice - case of petitioner is that the petitioner was never served any SCN as to why the assessment should not be finalized - Held that:- As per Section 122A of CA, an opportunity of hearing to a party in a proceeding is required to be given before passing the order. If sufficient cause is shown at any stage of the proceeding, the adjudicating authority may grant more time to the party for reasons to be recorded in writing.
In the present case, neither any show cause notice under the provisions of the Act was issued nor any opportunity of hearing was given to the petitioner before passing the impugned order, resulting in violation of principles of natural justice - Identical issue has been decided by this Court in R.V. General Trading v. Union of India, [2016 (9) TMI 673 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT], wherein in the absence of affording an appropriate opportunity of hearing, the impugned order was set aside and the matter was remitted back to the competent authority for fresh consideration - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1394
Concessional rate of duty - N/N. 62/2004-Cus., dated 12-5-2004 - case of the Revenue is that they should be considered as “Articles of Jewellery” not eligible for concession under the said notification - Held that:- In the face of the declarations made in the bills of entry as well as description of the gods in the import invoices, we note that a change in the categorization of the imported goods cannot be made in absence of the material facts to the effect that the declarations made in the bills of entry or the description in the import invoices are incorrect or deliberately misdeclared. The declarations as per the documents and the goods in physical form were available at the time of assessment and the goods were cleared after such due assessment.
The categorization of assessed goods were sought to be changed only on the interpretation of various terms and the same was not based on clear material supporting evidence. In absence of such evidence, we agree with the impugned orders that no denial of exemption can be agreed upon on the basis of the presumptions and interpretative, post-clearance of the goods, after due assessment.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (8) TMI 1387
Classification of goods - different parts of oil tanker - burden to prove - Held that:- When Rule 2(a) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 is read that throws light that it was the burden of the assessee to prove that different goods came to India as presented through bill of entries should have similar characteristics of the principal goods - But that was not the case - appeal dismissed.
........
|
