|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 84 Records
-
2023 (1) TMI 1360
Application for discharge under Section 245(2) of Cr.P.C. - learned Magistrate dismissed the application for discharge stating that the various contentions raised by the petitioners-accused can be considered after full-fledged trial, and the same was confirmed by the learned Sessions Judge - HELD THAT:- At para 4 of the complaint lodged by the respondent, it is alleged that the petitioners accused by making use of the fabricated purchase orders have availed the benefits under the Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1.03.2002. However, along with the complaint, the respondent has not placed any material to substantiate the allegations that the petitioners accused by making use of the fabricated purchase orders availed the benefit under the said notification. More so in the backdrop that the alleged fabricated documents were seized from the office of the accused, which implies that, the said documents were not made use of for claiming the benefits. Hence, in the absence of any material the cognizance taken by the learned Magistrate is impermissible.
The continuation of the criminal proceedings against the petitioners-accused will be an abuse of process of law, since the probability of the conviction of the petitioners-accused is remote and bleak.
The impugned proceedings on the file of The Special Court for Economic Offences, Bengaluru, is hereby quashed - Criminal petition is allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1348
Maintainability of appeal - low tax effect - Classification of the imported goods - Aluminium Composite Plates of various thickness - to be classified under heading 76061190 or under Heading 76109090? - rejection of declared value - enhancement of declared value based on NIDB data - it was held by CESTAT that Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in the present matter correctly held that the imported goods cannot be considered as ‘prepared for use in structures’ and therefore falls out of the scope of heading 7610 and the value declared by the respondent has to be accepted.
HELD THAT:- In view of the statement of the learned ASG that the appeal involves low tax effect, the appeal is dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1343
Permission for withdrawal of appeal - HELD THAT:- It is pointed out before us that Civil Appeal Diary No.21189/2021 already stands dismissed as withdrawn on 27.09.2021.
Out of two connected matters, one of them is not on Board before us today which is mentioned in the Office Report i.e. Civil Appeal Diary No.21188/2021 - Civil Appeal Diary No.21188/2021 is taken on Board.
The appeals are dismissed as withdrawn accordingly.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1338
Maintainability of petition - availability of alternative remedy of appeal to the petitioner under Section 129 A of the Customs Act, 1962 - Revocation of Custom Broker License of the petitioner - forfeiture of entire security deposit - imposing penalty - petitioner was not granted the right to cross-examination of the witnesses whose statements were relied upon - violation of Regulation 10 (d), 10 (m), 10 (n) & 10 (q) laid down in CBLR, 2018 - HELD THAT:- In the case of Godrej Sara Lee Ltd. Vs. Excise and Taxation Officer-cum-Assessing Authority and Others [2023 (2) TMI 64 - SUPREME COURT], the question for determination before the Apex Court was whether the High Court was justified in declining interference on the ground of availability of an alternative remedy of appeal to the appellant under Section 33 of the VAT Act, which it had not pursued.
Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018 prescribes the procedure for revoking the license or imposing penalty. The time limit (s) prescribed under the CBLR, 2018 is mandatory and not directory and this Court in a plethora of judgment has also repeatedly held so - In terms of regulations 17 (1), a show cause notice is to be issued within 90 days from the date of receipt of the Offence report, while regulation 17 (5) prescribes a time period of 90 days from the date of issue of Show Cause Notice for submission of an Inquiry Report. Regulation 17 (7) prescribes that within 90 days from the date of the submission of the Inquiry Report and after consideration thereof, the Principal Commissioner/Commissioner shall pass orders either revoking the suspension of license or revocation of license of the Customs Broker. Although, the said regulation does not prescribe an overall time limit for completing the inquiry, Circular No. 09/2010/Customs dated 08.04.2010 issued by the Central Board of Excise and Customs, Department of the Revenue, Ministry of Finance, Govt. of India, inter alia prescribed time limits for procedures governing the suspension/revocation of CB licenses.
As per regulation 17 (4) of CBLR, 2018, if the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs declines the permission to examine any person on the ground that his evidence is not relevant or material, he needs to record the reasons in writing for doing so but the Inquiry Officer assigned no reason what so ever. The Commissioner of Customs ignored the error on the part of the Inquiry Officer to grant an opportunity of cross examination of the exporters and rather observed that the object behind cross examination of the witnesses appeared to be to merely prolong/discredit the investigation and the denial of cross examination by the Inquiry Officer has not impacted the objectivity of the Inquiry. Such an observation is based on incorrect understanding of regulation 17 (4) of CBLR, 2018. Provisions of Regulation 17 (4) were given a complete go-by. Not allowing the Customs broker an opportunity to cross examine the persons examined in support of the grounds forming the basis of these proceedings has resulted in serious prejudice to the petitioner.
The Court in Kunal Travels [2017 (3) TMI 1494 - DELHI HIGH COURT] held that the obligation of the CHA under Section 13 (e) of the CHALR, 2004 cannot be stretched to it being obliged to undertake a further background check of the client. As such, as a Customs Broker, the petitioner cannot be held liable because exporters were not traceable, after the issuance of ‘Let Export Orders’ and export of the goods out of the country.
The Commissioner of Customs erred in accepting the findings of the Inquiry Officer regards the failure of Customs Broker to comply with the provisions of Regulation 10(d), 10 (m), 10 (n) & 10 (q) of the CBLR, 2018 - The impugned order dated 29.06.2022, insofar as, it revokes the CB License of the petitioner and levies penalty upon the petitioner shall stand quashed and set aside.
Petition allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1318
Exemption from Customs Duty - import of Boron Ore - exemption under serial No. 113 of Customs Notification No. 12/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012 for the period 01.04.2015 to 30.06.2017 and under serial No. 130 of Customs Notification No. 50/2017 dated 30.06.2017 - period after 01.07.2017 - test reports available on record but not perused - violation of principles of natural justice.
Denial of exemption on the ground that the Boron Ore imported by the appellant is not naturally mined Boron Ore but the impurities have been removed from the product therefore, the same is concentrated Boron Ore which is not eligible for exemption notification.
HELD THAT:- The exemption under the aforesaid notification is provided to goods viz. ‘Boron Ore’. From the perusal of the finding of the adjudicating authority, the test report of the product shows that the goods is ‘Boron Ore’ however, the same obtained after removal of impurities. The adjudicating authority has relied upon Wikipedia and Website for the meaning of ‘Ore’.
When the test reports are available on record, there is no need to go to the website and Wikipedia. Whether the goods will remain as Ore after removal of impurities has been considered in various judgments cited by the appellants. However, the adjudicating authority has not properly considered various defence submission made by the appellants and the judgments relied upon by the appellants.
The matter needs to be reconsidered in the light of the test reports and judgments relied upon by the appellant - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1316
Applicability of time period to claim refund of Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) on goods imported in terms of the Notification No. 102/2007-CUS. - HELD THAT:- This Court has, in a number of matters, dismissed the appeals filed by the Customs Authorities in view of the decision in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs [2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT].
In Commissioner of Customs v. S.R. Traders [2022 (4) TMI 1167 - DELHI HIGH COURT] , a Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed that decision in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs would be binding on other benches of this Court. In COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS PANVI TRADING CO. [2022 (12) TMI 1473 - DELHI HIGH COURT], this Court had taken note of the aforementioned decision and found no reason to differ with the aforesaid view.
The present appeal is required to meet a similar fate - Appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1315
Applicability of time period to claim refund of Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) on goods imported in terms of the Notification No. 102/2007-CUS. - HELD THAT:- This Court has, in a number of matters, dismissed the appeals filed by the Customs Authorities in view of the decision in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs [2014 (4) TMI 870 - DELHI HIGH COURT].
In Commissioner of Customs v. S.R. Traders [2022 (4) TMI 1167 - DELHI HIGH COURT], a Coordinate Bench of this Court has observed that decision in Sony India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs would be binding on other benches of this Court - In COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS PANVI TRADING CO. [2022 (12) TMI 1473 - DELHI HIGH COURT], this Court had taken note of the aforementioned decision and found no reason to differ with the aforesaid view.
The present appeal is required to meet a similar fate - Appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1307
Classification of goods proposed to be imported - Optoma Creative Touch 3-series Interactive Flat Panel (IFP) - to be classified under sub-heading 84714190 or not - HELD THAT:- In order to merit classification under heading 8471, it is clear that subject goods need to satisfy the requirements of note 6(A) to chapter 84. Therefore, there is a need to examine whether the features and specifications of the subject goods under consideration meet the criteria as laid down in the relevant chapter note.
From the product details submitted, it appears that these goods come configurable with off-the-shelf, end-user applications allowing the programming of the various functions in accordance with the needs of the user. As per the product details available on the website, these devices have pre-installed apps including Office Suite, which allows users to open and edit all Microsoft Office documents. Applications available include GoToMeeting, Firefox, Evernote, and many more. Therefore, the goods satisfy condition as per 6(A)(2). Creative Touch 3-Series Interactive Flat Panels, perform the arithmetical computations specified by the user which satisfy condition 6(A)(3) of the chapter notes.
As the machines under consideration do not have a keyboard, they appear to be classifiable as other ADP machines under 2nd one-dash sub-heading. Sub-heading 847141 covers other ADP machines; comprising in the same housing at least a central processing unit and an input and output unit, whether or not combined. For the machines under consideration, the LED screen satisfies the requirement for output and the touchscreen satisfies the requirement for input apart from the CPU inbuilt into the device. Therefore, the subject goods appear to be classifiable under sub-heading 847141 and more specifically under sub-heading 84714190 as "Other automatic data processing machines: Comprising in the same housing at least a central processing unit and an input and output unit, whether or not combined: Other".
Optoma Creative Touch 3-series Interactive Flat Panel (IFP) (Model - 3652RK, 3752RK, 3862RK) merit classification under Heading 8471 and more specifically under sub-heading 8471 41 90 of the first schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1297
Maintainability of appeal - Classification of imported goods - Cards (Populated Printed Circuit Boards) OSLM-5-100G-WL3N for DWDM Equipment-Photonic Service Switch (PSS) 1830 - classified under Customs Tariff Sub-heading 8517 7010 or under CTH 8517 62 90? - Revenue submits that the revenue has not indeed challenged the order(s) in the similar matters as mentioned in the Order(s) impugned.
HELD THAT:- It is thought appropriate to interfere in the impugned order(s) - Appeals are dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1295
Rights of detenue under COFEPOSA Act - contraband Gold - whether the detenu can ask for any and every document? - HELD THAT:- After referring to the various decisions the Apex Court in Powanmal [1999 (1) TMI 538 - SUPREME COURT] held that every document and materials which finds a passing reference in the course of narration of facts in the ground of detention need not be supplied. But such documents, non-supply of which would prejudice the detenu in making an effective representation are to be supplied to him. The reason is that non-supply of such documents would amount to denial of the right of being communicated the grounds and being afforded the opportunity of making effective representation against the detention order.
The petitioner brought to attention a few decisions of both the Apex Court and different High Courts, where the question, whether non supply of various documents amounted to denial of the right of the detenu having the effect of vitiating the order of detention, was considered. It is not proposed to deliberate upon those decisions since those are decisions on facts and no proposition of law different from what has been enunciated in the aforesaid decisions was evolved.
In ANKIT ASHOK JALAN VERSUS UNION OF IDNIA AND ORS. [2020 (3) TMI 248 - SUPREME COURT] the Apex Court held that the consideration for revocation of a detention order is limited to examining whether the order conforms with the provisions of law whereas the recommendation of the Advisory Board is on the sufficiency of material for detention, which alone is either confirmed or not accepted by the appropriate Government. Therefore the detenu cannot be heard to contend that the documents which were not placed before the detaining authority and found not to have a vitiating effect on the subjective satisfaction of that authority should have been supplied to the detenu.
In the above background only demand of the detenu for the documents can be considered. The grievance of the petitioner is about non-supply of five items of documents - Those are not relied upon documents. No reference to document No. 1, recording of audio chats between the detenu and Sri. Biju V Joy is there in the grounds of detention. Item No. 3, Exts.P2, P3 and P6 are post detention order documents and there could not be any mention of them in the grounds of detention. The other three documents do have casual mentioning, but the Detaining Authority did not rely on them.
As far as the show cause notices sent the co-accused and their replies are concerned there is only passing reference in the grounds in support of Ext.P8 detention order. In such circumstances, the detenu can resort to the plea of invalidity of the detention order for non-supply of those documents only if he substantiates that the non-supply caused prejudice to him. It is also his obligation to explain in what way those documents are relevant for his making representation.
Exts.P12 and P13 are the representations submitted by the detenu in which he made requests for those documents as well as Exts.P2, P3 and P6. The detenu did not state in what way those documents were relevant in the matter of his making representation. In this Writ Petition also, it is not explained how his right has been prejudiced as a result of non-supply of those documents. When Exts.P2, P3 and P6 were produced by him in this Writ Petition, his demand for those documents appears fallacious. In the case of documents which are relied upon by the Detaining Authority, it is the absolute right of the detenu to get copies within the time prescribed in Section 3(3) of the COFEPOSA Act - The detenu did not state in what way such documents are relevant for him to make his representation and how the non-supply has affected his right to make a meaningful and effective representation. In such circumstances, his attack to the detention order on the ground of non-supply of documents also fails.
Petition dismissed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1251
Seeking grant of bail - Smuggling of iphones - bail was granted by the High Court [2022 (12) TMI 1114 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] - Seeking permission for withdrawal of SLP - HELD THAT:- The special leave petition stands dismissed as withdrawn.
Seeking grant of bail - creation of fake firms for availing and passing of fake/ ineligible Input Tax Credit (ITC) to facilitate existing beneficiary firms - HC [2023 (2) TMI 978 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] held that Taking into consideration the investigation and evidence so collected, the trial will take considerable time and it may happen, if denied bail, the judicial custody be prolonged beyond the statutory period of punishment which is for five years - HELD THAT:- Interference with the impugned judgment not required - SLP dismissed.
Seeking provisional release of the seized goods - to whom / any person - iPhones - Respondent’s ownership of such goods itself is seriously disputed - contravention of Section 110 A of the Customs Act, 1962 - HC [2022 (9) TMI 447 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] held that the Tribunal has in fact committed an error in importing the definition of an ‘importer’ as defined under Section 2(26) of the Act and reading the same in Section 110A of the Act - HELD THAT:- Application seeking exemption from filing C/C of the impugned judgment is allowed - Issue notice returnable in four weeks.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1235
Seeking grant of bail - case made out for bail is applicant's wife regularly takes treatment of a doctor and in coming time she would be hospitalized for the delivery of a child and since there is nobody to look-after the applicant's wife, therefore, three months' temporary bail be granted to the applicant - HELD THAT:- Keeping the facts in totality, the applicant is a low paid employee being a driver. The other main accused are already in jail and his wife has delivered the child.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the application is allowed and applicant-Dhiraj Rai is directed to be released temporarily on bail for the period of one month from the date of his release upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.20,000/- with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Application allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1195
Liability of nominee directors for offence / non compliance committed prior to their appointment - EPCG Scheme - non-fulfilment of export obligation - nominee director and their contiguous liabilities - Section 140 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- In the present case all directors have been appointed as nominees from among the consortium of banks to oversee the adherence of the company to its financial obligations. Their role and responsibility is thus specific and this is the context against which the liability cast in terms of Section 140 of the Companies Act, has to be tested - While there may be some justification in implicating a nominee director for statutory violations that are current, the violation in question touches upon alleged non-compliance with the terms EPCG licence issued in 2010, long prior to their appointment.
No doubt, the terms of the EPCG licence required the assessee to comply with export obligations for a period of eight years after date of licence. However, at the time when such nominee directors were appointed such obligations would not have been at the forefront and there is no justification in expecting the newly appointed directors to apply their minds to the obligations that had crystallized long prior to their appointment and previously in time.
It would be improper, unjustified and unwarranted to expect them to have had any participation or involvement in compliance with the continuing export obligation.
Petition allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1194
Refund of the Customs Duty paid in respect of the imported goods - permission to re-export the imported goods - rejection of refund only on the ground that the refund claim of the appellant was hit by the provisions of Section 26A (3) ibid - HELD THAT:- The provisions of Section 26A and 27 of the Customs Act operate in different situations: Section 26A (1) specifically covers the refund of import duty in certain cases where the imported goods are found to be defective or not in conformity with the specifications, are identified to the satisfaction of the Assistant Commissioner, there is no claim of drawback and such goods are exported or the importer abandons the goods or they are destroyed or rendered commercially valueless. Thus, all the conditions at (a), (b), (c) and (d) provided under Section 26A (1) are to be satisfied cumulatively - Sub-section (3) to Section 26A prescribes that “no refund under sub-section (1) shall be allowed in respect of perishable goods and goods which have exceeded their shelf life..”. Thus, in my view, the scope of sub-section (3) is limited to the cumulative conditions under (a) to (d) of Section 26A (1) ibid. and the refund claim of any duty that has been paid could be entertained provided the said goods are cleared for home consumption. By ordering destruction, the imported goods in question could never be cleared for home consumption and consequently, the provisions of Section 26A ibid. would not apply.
The only provision, therefore, that applies is Section 27 and hence, the rejection of refund by taking recourse to Section 26A (3) by the authorities below is incorrect - Section 27 also prescribes a time-limit of one year, but the same is subject to the saving proviso provided under sub-section (1B). There is no dispute that the appellant paid the duty provisionally and the same is reflected in the orders of lower authorities, including the order of destruction dated 27.05.2015 and thus, in terms of clause (c) to sub-section (1B) of Section 27 ibid., the limitation (of one year), if at all, would apply from the date of adjustment of duty after the final assessment thereof.
It is found that even there is no dispute that the Revenue authorities have not passed the final assessment order as yet, as could be gathered from the grounds-of-appeal - the authorities below have erred in rejecting the refund claim, in a haste, even before a final assessment could be made as required under law.
Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1150
Violation of principles of natural justice - non-speaking order - HELD THAT:- It appears that communications continued on the part of the petitioner to comply with the directions, after considering all the judgements on all the issues raised by the petitioner, but, to no avail.
Let the Assessing Officer/ Adjudicating Authority decide all these aspects and pass a detailed speaking order within a period of two months, without fail - Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1149
Levy of penalty of various persons - Allegation of abating the Smuggling - Detention of goods - illegal removal of the container using forged documents from the customs area - creation of forged out of charge (OOC) and Pass- out documents and handing over documents for clearance to Karthikeyan and told him to take delivery - HELD THAT:- There is much contradiction as to the dates on which the container was removed. The investigation of the removal of this container was taken up along with alleged illegal removal of containers in respect of five other bills of entry. However, the date of removal of the container of this case is not satisfactorily established. That apart from the statement of Shri Karthikeyan, there is nothing to establish that the appellant had any role in forging documents or removing the container from the CFS area. The contradiction pointed out by the learned counsel also shakes the case put up by the department.
The department has failed to establish the allegations raised against the appellants. The penalties imposed therefore require to be set aside - Appeal allowed.
The allegation is that the goods have been misdeclared. Though the adjudicating authority has absolutely confiscated goods under Annexure II, the reason for such confiscation is that the goods have violated IPR / BIS Rules. In regard to goods imported under Annexure I and III, the adjudicating authority has given an option to the importer to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine. The appellant who is a Customs Broker cannot be expected to have knowledge about the goods in the container - On such circumstance, when there is no dispute with regard to the KYC documents submitted on behalf of the importer, the penalty imposed under sec. 112(a) alleging that the appellant has abetted smuggling of misdeclared / undeclared goods is without any factual basis.
The penalty imposed on the appellants alleging abetment, that they have rendered the goods liable for confiscation, is totally unwarranted. The penalty imposed on the appellants require to be set aside - Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1148
Imposition of penalty u/s under Section 112 and Section 114 AA of the Act - using fake/fabricated gate passes and on being unsuccessful, have filed bill of entry on forged/fabricated Air Way Bill (AWB) - removal of imported goods on fake gate passes without filing bill of entry - HELD THAT:- Shri Dhananjay Kumar Singh is the kingpin in the attempted removal of valuable cargo from Customs-Custodian by resorting to forgery and other acts of omissions and commissions. It is he, who received instructions from Ms. Sonia of Hong Kong for removal of cargo from the Customs Department of India without filing bill of entry. For this work, Ms. Sonia agreed for giving remuneration @Rs.750/- per kg. or Rs.7,00,000/- approximately. Thereafter, Shri Dhananjay Kumar Singh, who was handling the clearance for Shri Mohit Jain of M/s.Shankeshwar Impex, used the IEC of M/s. Shankeshwar Impex for import of the goods. Shri Mohit Jain has allowed the use of his IEC in good faith, not knowing about the illegality or attempt to smuggle the goods by Shri Dhananjay Kumar Singh - Shri Dhananjay Kumar Singh had also admitted that on earlier two occasions also, he had cleared the valuable consignment by resorting to smuggling, as the earlier two consignments were cleared without filing bill of entry by resorting to forgery and delivery without actual gate pass. Accordingly, penalty imposed on Shri Dhananjay Kumar Singh of Rs.5,00,000/- under Section 112 and Rs.20,00,000/- under Section 114 AA are confirmed and his appeal is rejected.
Penalty on Shri Upendra Kumar Chaubey - HELD THAT:- He has actively connived in the whole episode of smuggling, morefully described hereinabove. He has knowingly used forged documents like gate pass etc. having knowledge of its forged nature. However, he is a person of small means and employee of the importer - M/s.Shankeshwar Impex. The penalty imposed upon him is disproportionate. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed in part. The penalty of Rs.4,00,000/- under Section 112 reduced to Rs.1,00,000/- and penalty of Rs.15,00,000/- under Section 114 AA to Rs.3,00,000/-.
Penalty on Shri Abhishekh Mishra - HELD THAT:- He is H-Card Holder employed with CHA firm viz. M/s Aeroship Logicare Pvt. Ltd., being engaged in the Customs clearance work for the last few years, was aware of the basic Customs procedure. Further, he was promised for Rs.10,000/- for abetting in the smuggling done by Shri Dhananjay Kumar Singh. Normally, this high amount of remuneration is not given for simple delivery of the import consignment. Thus, connivance on the part of this appellant is evident on the basis of the record - penalty for falsification of the documents and its use, having knowledge of false/or forged nature of the documents is not attracted. Accordingly, the penalty of Rs.1,00,000/-under Section 112 is confirmed and the penalty under Section 114 AA of Rs.5,00,000/- is set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
Penalty on M/s. Krishna Logistics Management - HELD THAT:- They have acted bonafidely as a CHA and there is no lapse on their part in taking instructions and filing the bill of entry. Further, they have filed the bill of entry on first check basis and also requested for examination of the goods and the documents before the Customs Department. Further, there is no allegation of any connivance on their part in the attempted smuggling of the imported goods on 28.07.2017. Accordingly, appeal is allowed and the penalties imposed is set aside.
Penalty on M/s. Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd. - HELD THAT:- It is evident that they are not party to the attempted removal by other appellants in the nature of smuggling, particularly, Shri Dhananjay Kumar Singh. However, there appears to be lack of ‘internal control procedures’ in their office/warehouse, and taking advantage of such loop holes in the procedures/mechanism, Shri Dhananjay Kumar Singh and others in collusion have attempted to remove the imported goods without filing bill of entry by using forged documents - M/s Celebi Delhi Cargo Terminal Management India Pvt. Ltd. have immediately informed the Customs of the incident, which had happened on 28.07.2017 as 29th and 30th July, 2017 were holidays in the Customs Department, and on 31.07.2017, the whole episode was brought to the knowledge of the Customs along with evidences collected by them as well as the statement of Forklift driver.
The penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- imposed under Regulation 12 (8) of the Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 is reduced to Rs.1,00,000/-. Penalty of Rs.5,00,000/- under Section 112 of the Act is set aside - Appeal allowed in part.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1109
Recovery of Validity of Audit Consultative Letter issued as per the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - pre-notice consultation - import of Horse Feed - exemption from payment of IGST Duty? - HELD THAT:- As no final decision has been taken till date by the respondent as to whether a notice contemplated under Section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 has to be issued to the petitioner or not with regard to the recovery of duties not levied or not paid or short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded, the question of entertaining this writ petition, at this stage, will not arise as the petitioner has approached this Court pre-maturely. However, the respondent will have to necessarily give due consideration on merits and in accordance with law to the contentions raised by the petitioner in this writ petition that the horse feed is exempted from payment of IGST Duty.
This writ petition is disposed of on the ground that the writ petition has been filed pre-maturely.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1108
Withholding of final reward - petitioner's claim as a legal heir - establishment of identity - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the information was received which led to the successful seizure of the smuggled goods. The Informer for this seizure was therefore entitled to final reward. It is not the case of the Respondents that there is some other person entitled to final reward. Most importantly, two interim rewards have been released. They are obviously released after establishing the identity of the Informer. No explanation is being offered on this count. Except for disputing the Informer's identity, the Respondents have not positively stated that the interim reward was released to some other person and not the Petitioner's husband- Chandrakant. The Petitioner has given a reasonable explanation for variances in the signature of her husband on the receipt and subsequent signature that her husband had lost his eyesight due to an accident.
Once the deponent has accepted that reward at the interim stage was paid to Chandrakant and that the Petitioner has established that she is the legal heir of Chandrakant, then withholding the final reward is entirely arbitrary. Even keeping aside the above two statements made in the affidavit, considering the totality of the circumstances and that nothing is placed before us that there was some other Informer and not Chandrakant who received the interim reward in respect of the concerned case, it is found that the claim of the Petitioner could not have been rejected on the ground of identity.
The policy under the Circular of 2015, postulates rewards for information. Clause 7.2, which postulates the time limit to sanction the final reward, emphasizes that it is desirable that immediately upon conclusion of the adjudication, the final reward be released as an intensive to improve compliance. Though there is no legal right to demand a reward, as stated in the policy, the rejection must not be arbitrary, and the approach should not be such that it discourages the Informers from coming forward. Ultimately, the objective of offering a reward to the Informer is to aid the department in taking measures to safeguard the public exchequer - Having concluded that the Petitioner’s claim is meritorious, we find that this is a fit case where the interference of the Court is necessary. In the facts of this case, non-intervention by us in the writ jurisdiction would amount to a failure of justice.
The Respondents will treat the claim of the Petitioner's husband – Chandrakant as eligible for the grant of final reward in respect of the concerned case and process the Petitioner’s claim as his legal heir - Application disposed off.
-
2023 (1) TMI 1107
Refund of Special Additional Duty of Customs (SAD) - Can the refund can be claimed after the period prescribed by the Notification No.102/2007-Cus. dated 14.09.2007? - HELD THAT:- It is the first principle of law that justice must not only be done but must also be seen to be done. It is clear from the impugned order that the appellant has not been heard, for whatever reason, and without following the principle of natural justice, the appeal has been decided against the appellant. There are force in the submissions of learned Counsel that this ground itself is sufficient for setting aside the impugned order and therefore without going into the merits of the matter, the case is remanded to the 1st Appellate Authority to decide the Appeal afresh after giving due notice to the appellant for personal hearing and also giving sufficient opportunity of hearing to the appellant.
The appeal is accordingly, allowed by way of remand to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).
|
