|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 158 Records
-
2017 (8) TMI 978 - CESTAT CHENNAI
DEPB benefit - Processing of Shrimps exported - Perishable Commodity - Revenue says that default to use the respective chemicals/preservatives as per the SION prescribed by DGFT shall make the goods perishable and thereby disrepute the country in view of the WTO norms - Held that: - the appellant has not brought out any evidence to suggest that the job work carried out on behalf of the appellant was using the chemical norm prescribed by the DGFT which is popularly known as SION norms. Once the evidence do not exist, the claimant has no case to make a higher claim of DEPB. Therefore, without going into the other details it can irresistibly be concluded that allegation of Revenue was reasonable for which the appeal is dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (8) TMI 977 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Release of Confiscated goods - Misdeclaration of goods - enhancement of value based on contemporaneous import - the imported goods were declared as PDO which is in fact base oil - Held that: - the Assistant Commissioner, Shri Gurmail Singh is deliberately avoiding compliance of the order of this Tribunal dated 12-7-2016 and not releasing the goods in question. In that circumstance, Assistant Commissioner, Shri Gurmail Singh is issued a show cause notice to file reply as to why the contempt of court proceedings should not be initiated against him before the Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and according for taking proper action against him. The notice is returnable on 25-2-2017.
-
2017 (8) TMI 976 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Quantum of redemption fine and penalty - designated port for import of cable scrap “ISRI Barley (Millbery) - Held that: - the only offence committed by the respondent is that they have imported the scrap at ICD, Rewari which cannot be imported through ICD, Rewari. As ICD, Rewari is not designated port to that such goods and for that mistake of the respondent, the adjudicating authority has already imposed redemption fine of ₹ 1,50,000/- and penalty of ₹ 25,000/- which is sufficient in the facts and circumstances of the case, as there is no major fault of the respondent for importation of said goods - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (8) TMI 879 - CESTAT MUMBAI
100% EOU - Absolute Confiscation - import of restricted item - R-22 Gas - confiscation on the ground that appellant have not obtained the Special Import License for import of R-22 Gas - Held that: - As per FTP, 2009-2014 the goods R-22 Gas is restricted items and the import of the same can be made only after obtaining import license - In the present case, appellant being 100% EOU is under the jurisdiction of Development Commissioner, who is also regional licensing authority, accordingly for all the purposes related to FTP, the development commissioner is the authority incharged of the appellant's unit - From the LOP, it can be seen that except prohibited goods, all items of import and local purchases are permitted. It is undisputed that goods R-22 Gas is not prohibited goods therefore the said goods is permitted to be imported as per LOP dated 3-1-2011.
It is clear that once the LOP is obtained by EOU, no further license is required as LOP is authorization of all purposes - in the present case, when development commissioner has specifically allowed the import of R-22 Gas, there is no need of special import license.
Cancellation of LOP under which appellant proposed to clear the imported goods - Held that: - right from shipment of goods, import of goods, filing of bill of entry, issue of LOP, broad banding of LOP in respect of R-22 gas and specific permission for import of R-22 gas has taken placed much before the cancellation of LOP i.e. 24-6-2013. Therefore, at the time of import the goods R-22 gas was permitted to be imported and cleared under LOP/permission granted by the Development Commissioner, therefore subsequent cancellation of LOP cannot have retrospective effect.
Import shall be governed by the valid license existing at the time of import of goods, subsequent cancellation of the said license will not affect import and clearance of the goods prior to the date of cancellation of license - even though LOP was cancelled on 24-6-2013, the same will not adversely affect the import of the goods taken place prior to 24-6-0013. Accordingly, the goods were not liable for confiscation.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (8) TMI 878 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Quantum of Redemption fine - penalty - import of restricted item - old and used photocopiers - Held that: - As seen from the value enhanced as well as the redemption fine and penalties imposed, we are of the opinion that the redemption fine and penalties are high and requires interference - the quantum of redemption fine and penalty reduced - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (8) TMI 877 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Classification of imported goods - ‘blenders’ of three different models - classified under CTH 8438 80 90 as machinery for the industrial preparation of food or drink or under CTH 8509 as electric, mechanical domestic appliances with self contained electric motor? - Held that: - Commissioner (A), after considering the product specification from the brochure and website of the imported goods, has recorded that these goods comprise of electric motor and are meant for commercial and industrial clients and not for domestic segment. Further, he has recorded that the suppliers of “Vitamix” brand of blenders restrict themselves to the supply of blenders only for Commercial or industrial purpose in India - goods rightly classified under CTH 8438.
Confiscation - Held that: - the dispute is with reference to correct classification of the goods. In view of the two competing classifications under customs tariff, the difference in opinion cannot be considered as mis declaration. Consequently, there is no justification for confiscation of the imported goods which is set aside.
Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2017 (8) TMI 876 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Valuation of exported goods - The value quoted by the informers in the market was used against the appellant and declared value of the goods meant for export was reduced for no reason - Held that: - Market enquiry was not the sole evidence used by Revenue in the adjudication to find mis-declaration of value of export and reduced the value of over-valued goods declared to Customs. Department found from market that the goods meant for exports were available in market at very low prices. That established overvaluation of exportable goods to secure undue benefit by appellant - Futile exercise was made by the appellant to challenge allegation without placing terms and condition of the job working and value of the exported goods. In absence of any basis, being provided by appellant to contradict enquiry result, appellant failed to prove its case. No cogent and credible evidence were led to prove that there was no mis-declaration of the value of the goods exported.
In so far as the penalty on the three appellants are concerned, that is reduced from ₹ 4,00,000/- to ₹ 1,00,000/- each in proportion to the re-determined value of the impugned goods at ₹ 8,85,500/- for DEPB scraps as against declared FOB value of ₹ 29,38,320/-.
Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (8) TMI 875 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Rectification of Mistake - The plea of the applicant is that three Member Bench deciding on ADD has clearly ordered for the continuation of AD duty at the rate as applicable on the date preceding the issue of N/N. 70/2010. Whereas in the impugned order it was mentioned as levy and collection of AD duty at the rates prescribed in N/N. 70/2010-Cus - Held that: - it is clear that continued levy of AD duty at the rate applicable on the date preceding the issue of N/N. 70/2010, dated 25-6-2010 was ordered by the said Bench. The ruling of the said ADD Bench was only followed in the impugned order. However, the wordings has given a different meaning. Accordingly, we correct the errors in the impugned order - ROM application allowed.
-
2017 (8) TMI 874 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Valuation - import of Thermal Printing Media Roll with brand name “SONY” - the department opined that in the past also the appellant might have imported the same goods with undervaluation - Held that: - it appears that duty was demanded only on presumption and without having imported items in hand. So, without any concrete material to establish pertaining the imported goods, the Revenue is not justified in raising value and demand the differential duty - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (8) TMI 873 - CESTAT MUMBAI
N/N. 1/64-Cus., dated 18-1-1964 - footwear - prohibited goods - denial of benefit on the ground that appellant have not mentioned country of origin on the package of the goods, i.e. footwear, therefore there is violation of the condition which made the goods prohibited - Held that: - in accordance with the N/N. 1/64-Cus., country of origin is required to be mentioned on the package of the footwear which appellant failed to do so - However, it is observed from the facts that the appellant proposed to affix the country of origin, i.e. “Made in China” in their factory and certificate can be obtained from the jurisdictional excise authority and shall be produced before the Customs Authority, however, same has been denied by the Customs Authority - appellant had no mala fide intention in not affixing the country of origin on the packages of the footwear.
The goods were liable for confiscation, however appellant deserves the leniency. We therefore reduced the redemption fine from ₹ 3.5 lacs to ₹ 1 lac., penalty also reduced from ₹ 75,000/- to ₹ 25,000/-.
Appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2017 (8) TMI 872 - DELHI HIGH COURT
100% EOU - Refund claim - shortfall in export obligation - denial of the benefit of a Public Notice dated 12-8-2013 - Effective date of applicability - Held that: - The terms of the Public Notice are clear that the verification i.e. any authorization holder choosing to avail the benefit should complete the process of payment on or before 31-3-2014. The policy is applicable to “all pending cases” of the default in meeting export obligations.
This Court is of the opinion that the respondent’s stand that the petitioner was ineligible to the benefit, is untenable; that the remand by the Appellate Authority to the Adjudicating Authority, it cannot be said that the matter remained concluded. Till date, the Adjudicating Authority has not passed any fresh orders and in that since the matter is “pending” or live. The petitioner fulfilled the requirement of the Public Notice and applied on 7-3-2014 i.e. well before the cut off date of 31-3-2014.
The respondents are hereby directed to verify the petitioner’s application and pass the necessary orders after satisfying themselves as to other conditions of eligibility, with respect to the regularization of the default in EOU and as to its entitlement for consequential refund in terms of the Public Notice dated 12-8-2013 - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (8) TMI 816 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Jurisdiction - power of DRI to issue SCN - Held that: - the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in the case of BSNL Vs. UOI [2017 (6) TMI 688 - DELHI HIGH COURT] has dealt with the identical issue where the notice was also issued by DRI. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi has considered the judgment in the case of Mangli Impex Vs. UOI [2016 (8) TMI 1181 - SUPREME COURT], which is stayed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, where the petitioner is permitted to review the challenge depending on the outcome of the appeals filed by the UOI in the Supreme Court against the judgment of the Court in the case of Mangli Impex Ltd. - 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 Mangli Impex - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (8) TMI 815 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Jurisdiction - power of DRI to issue SCN - Held that: - the powers of officers working in these organizations to issue notice under Customs Act, 1962 as proper officers has been subject matter of decision by various High Courts - I set aside the impugned orders and remand the matter to the original authority to decide the question of jurisdiction first and thereafter on merit after the matter is settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the pending appeals by the Revenue against the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/s Mangali Impex Ltd., M/s Pace International And Others Versus Union of India And Others [2016 (5) TMI 225 - DELHI HIGH COURT] - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2017 (8) TMI 814 - SC ORDER
Interpretation of statute - meaning of the term ‘domestic industry’ - Rule 2(b) of the Anti-Dumping Rules - the decision in the case of NIRMA LIMITED Versus SAINT GOBAIN GLASS INDIA LTD. [2012 (10) TMI 832 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] contested - Held that: - we do not consider it necessary to go into the issue(s) arising in the present Special Leave Petitions, namely, the precise meaning of the term ‘domestic industry’ in Rule 2(b) of the Anti-Dumping Rules which issue is left open for adjudication in an appropriate case - SLP disposed off being not maintainable.
-
2017 (8) TMI 813 - SC ORDER
Valuation - Technology Transfer Agreement - Whether royalty paid in terms, is a condition of sale includible in the assessable value - Rule 9(1)(c) of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 2008 - the decision in the case of CC, New Delhi Versus M/s Avaya Global Connect Ltd. [2016 (3) TMI 256 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], contested, where it was held that as the Supply Agreement is consistent with the Technology Transfer Agreement, and the supplier had the right to terminate the supplies in case of non-payment of royalties, the payment of royalty is a condition of sale and includible in the assessable value - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2017 (8) TMI 812 - SC ORDER
Permission to withdraw the appeal - Eligibility for concessional rate of additional duty of customs in accordance with N/N. 6/2006-CE dated 1st March 2006 and N/N. 12/2012-CE dated 17th March 2012 - classification of imported goods - ‘external hard disks’ classified under heading 84717030 or 84717040 of the Schedule of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985? - the decision in the case of Ingram Micro India Pvt. Ltd. Manoj Gupta, Manish Agarwal, Fortune Marketing Private Limited Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import) ACC, Mumbai [2016 (11) TMI 847 - CESTAT MUMBAI] contested, where it was held that The imports of the appellants are liable to be classified under 84717030 and not 84717020 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985 - Held that: - Permission sought for is granted - appeal dismissed.
-
2017 (8) TMI 811 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Recovery of Customs Duty - case of petitioner is that the amounts demanded are excessive given that he has deposited the liabilities - Held that: - what appellant is in substance seeking is discharge from his entire liabilities without disclosing if and when the amounts were paid, the Court is of the opinion that there is no question of any fallacy in the demands made. The present petition is a glaring abuse of the process of Court - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2017 (8) TMI 810 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Anti-dumping duty - request for Sunset Review (SSR) turned down - Held that: - The Court is of the opinion that the petitioners/applicants have shown a prima facie case as well as satisfied that there would be irretrievable injustice given the fact that on the expiry of the day, (i.e. tomorrow midnight), the initiation of review would be rendered impossible - a direction is issued to the respondents to - in the course of the day - initiate the Sunset Review in the petitioners’ case - petition allowed.
-
2017 (8) TMI 809 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Claim of Duty Drawback - Period of limitation - The petitioner had exported goods which it had imported. The petitioner claims to have become entitled to duty drawback in terms of Re-export of Imported Goods (Drawback of Customs Duties) Rules, 1995 - Rule 5 and Rule 7A of such Rules - Held that: - Rule 5 deals with the manner and time of claiming drawback on goods exported other than by post. The goods of the petitioner comes within the purview of Rule 5 in terms of Rule 5(1). The petitioner was required to file a duty drawback claimed in the form at Annexure II of the Rules within three months from the date of the order permitting clearance and loading of the goods for exportation under Section 51 - The claim contemplated under Rule 5 has to be accompanied by documents specified by under Rule 5(2). Rule 5(4) provides that, in the event there are incomplete particulars, the same is required to be returned to the claimant with a deficiency memo.
In the present case, the application which is claimed to be an application for duty drawback is the bill of shipping itself. The bill of shipping does not quantify the rupee equivalent of the claim made by the petitioner. The claim is not made in Form of Annexure II of the Rules. The claim has not been lodged with the necessary documents as specified in Rule 5(2) of the Rules of 1995. The petitioner did not made any representation to the Central Government for relaxation of any of the Rules. Therefore, the shipping bill itself cannot be construed to be an application for drawback within the meaning of Rule 5(1) of the Rules of 1995 - I am not in a position to come to a finding that, the petitioner has made an application for duty drawback within the time prescribed. Since such is the finding, the question of the petitioner applying before an officer not authorised to do so does not arise.
A Writ Court is not required to reappraise the entire evidence led before the revisional authority to come to a finding that, the appreciation of the materials placed before the revisional authority was incorrect. The petitioner has not alleged breach of principles of natural justice by the revisional authority in arriving at the impugned order. The petitioner has not been able to substantiate any perversity in the impugned order. There is no allegation of bias or mala fide against the revisional authority. Therefore, no case has been made out to interfere with the impugned order.
Petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2017 (8) TMI 808 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Compensation for the loss of materials in transit through India - company registered in foreign country (Nepal) - Held that: - Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not limit the exercise of such powers by High Court at the instance of citizens of India only. The Courts, over a period of time, have recognized the availability to the recourse to Article 226 of the Constitution of India to persons other than natural persons who are Indians. A juristic person carrying on business in India has been recognized to be entitled to maintain and obtain relief under Article 226 of the Constitution. A foreign national, has also been recognized to be entitled to approach the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in the event of violation of human rights.
In the present case, the right to transport the goods from the port of Kolkata to the territory of Nepal has been claimed to be violated by the action or the non-action of the State authorities. Essentially it is a right having its foundational basis and emanating out of Article 19(1)(g) of the Constitution which the petitioner is seeking to enforce. Article 19(1)(g) is available to a citizen of India. Its availability has been extended to juristic persons constituted under the laws of India. A foreign company cannot be allowed to invoke Article 226 founding its claim on the violation of Article 19(1)(g).
The treaty does not contemplate that the Indian Government has to pay for the alleged theft of the materials in transit. The culmination of the First Information Report has not been produced on record. It has not been conclusively established that there was any theft. The question of grant of compensation by the Indian Government to the petitioner does not arise - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
|
