|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 95 Records
-
2023 (2) TMI 402 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Simultaneous availment of Status Holder Incentive Scheme (SHIS) and 0% Export Promotion Capital Goods (EPCG) Scheme - Surrender of EPCG Scheme in terms of para 5.14 of Hand Book of Procedure (HBP) prior to the issuance of SHIS Scrips - HELD THAT:- The Supreme Court in Titan Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs New Delhi [2002 (11) TMI 108 - SUPREME COURT] has held Once an advance licence was issued and not questioned by the licensing authority, the Customs Authorities cannot refuse exemption on an allegation that there was misrepresentation. If there was any misrepresentation, it was for the licensing authority to take steps in that behalf.
Keeping in view the judgment as well as the revised instructions dated 06th February, 2023 issued by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, present writ petition is allowed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 401 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Evasion of custom duty - whether the Customs Act prohibits the criminal prosecution under the IPC - Forging the shipping bills and submitting bogus sipping bills with criminal conspiracy - involvement of certain racketeers in misuse of Duty Exemption Pass Book (DEPB) and Duty Exemption Entitlement Certificate (DEEC) Scheme by using forged shipping bills in the name of fictitious as well as existing firms for obtaining DEPBs or for fulfilling export obligation against DEEC Licenses - Offence under Sections 132, 133, 134, 135 and 135A of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- The primary allegation is of forging the shipping bills and causing loss to the tune of Rs.17 Crores of custom duty to the Government of India. Forging of document and cheating etc. are not the offences which are defined under the Customs Act. The judgement relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in Union of India Vs. Ashok Kumar Sharma and others [2020 (8) TMI 827 - SUPREME COURT] has no relevance to the facts of the present case as in that case the offence is squarely covered within the ambit of the special statute such as Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
The investigating agency or the police would have jurisdiction to investigate the offence committed under the IPC. There may be some overlapping of two statues regarding the offence committed under IPC as well as under the Customs Act, but that would not preclude the registration of the FIR, investigating the offence and taking cognizance and summoning an accused, if after investigation it has been found that such an accused has committed the offence under the IPC besides the Customs Act.
There are no merit in the present petition - petition dismissed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 383 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Adjustment of pending drawback claims towards the demand - seeking to consider the appeal on merits without insisting pre-deposit required under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 - refund of Duty Drawback alongwith the interest - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the view that the petitioner’s grievance may be allayed if directions are issued to the respondent to forthwith release the duty drawback in respect of the five Shipping Bills (out of nine shipping bills that were uploaded by the petitioner on 28.07.2015). The petitioner would, thereafter, be at liberty to utilise the funds received for complying with its obligation to make a pre-deposit to maintain an appeal before the CESTAT.
This Court also considers it apposite to direct CESTAT not to reject the petitioner’s appeal (diary no. 52123/2021) for want of pre-deposit for a period of four weeks from today - Insofar as the petitioner’s claim for other remaining duty drawback is concerned (the duty drawback in respect of other Shipping Bills), the petitioner is at liberty to avail of its alternate remedy for release of the said amount.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (2) TMI 332 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Rejection of petitioner's application filed under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 seeking for redemption of Indian and Foreign currencies confiscated from the petitioner by paying fine - Original Authority exercised correct discretion, in such rejection or not - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation can be sought even for prohibited goods. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner in UNION OF INDIA VERSUS ROSTAM PARVARESH [2011 (10) TMI 446 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] and RAJU SHARMA AND ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS. [2020 (1) TMI 62 - DELHI HIGH COURT] dealt with cases, where discretion was exercised in favour of the applicant by the Original Authority under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 by granting redemption, which was not interfered with by the High Court - But in the instant case, the Original Authority, the Appellate Authority as well as the Revisional Authority viz., the 1st respondent herein have concurrently held that the petitioner is not entitled for redemption of the confiscated foreign and Indian currencies.
Admittedly, the confiscation order passed in respect of foreign and Indian currencies seized from the petitioner has also attained finality. Therefore, it is clear that the petitioner has violated the Regulation 5 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import Currency) Regulations 2015. Under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 it is a discretionary power - Having exercised the discretion by giving sound reasons, the question of interference by this Court exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in respect of the orders, which have been challenged in this writ petition will not arise. This Court is not an Appellate Court and only when the orders challenged are perverse, the question of interference with regard to those orders will arise. The reasons given by authorities for rejecting the petitioner's application under Section 125 of the Customs Act are sound and justifiable.
Here is a case, where all the three authorities, who have passed the orders, which have been impugned in this writ petition have consistently held that the petitioner is not entitled for redemption. When it is not in dispute that the petitioner has violated Regulation 5 of Foreign Exchange Management (Export and Import Currency) Regulations 2015 and that too when the confiscation order has attained finality and that too when the impugned orders are not perverse, this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has to necessarily reject this writ petition as it is bereft of any merit.
This writ petition is dismissed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 331 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Penalty imposed on the Respondents under Section 112(a) and (b) of the Customs Act, 1962, dropped - It was alleged that the Respondents had admitted to have been involved in several smuggling activities including the one seized on 09.06.2019 - statement recorded before the Customs official is a statement recorded under section 161 of the Criminal Procure Code, or not - evidence collected by the Customs officials under section 108 of the Customs Act - existence of corroborative evidence or not - retraction of statements - Monetary amount involved in the appeal.
Maintainability of appeal - Monetary amount involved in the appeal - HELD THAT:- In view of instructions issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Central Board of Excise & Customs F.No.390/Misc./163/2010-JC dated 17.12.2015, the revenue involved in the Appeals are nil as Commissioner(Appeals) has not imposed any penalty on the Respondents, therefore, Appeals are not maintainable before this Tribunal.
On merits also, it is found that except the statements recorded by the DRI dated 10.06.2019 and 11.06.2019 which were retracted by the Respondents on the first opportunity available on 12.06.2019 before the Ld.CMM, Kolkata, no other corroborative evidence has been brought on record. In that circumstances penalty on the Respondents are not imposable.
In the case of Surjeet Singh Chhabra [1996 (10) TMI 106 - SUPREME COURT] there was an evidence of recovery of gold in the possession of the accused apart from the statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962. In that circumstances, the decision is not applicable.
The Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) has rightly dropped the penalty against the Respondents as there is no corroborative evidence on record in support of the statement made before DRI Officers which were retracted on first available opportunity before the Ld.CMM and no cross-examination of any witness has been granted to the Respondents - Appeal of Revenue dismissed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 288 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Smuggling - seizure of gold weighing 46.3 kgs - Prohibited goods or not - levy of personal penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Validity of SCN - Jurisdiction of DRI to issue SCN - It is the grievance of the petitioner that he never received a notice to show cause as to why 22.3 kgs of gold be not confiscated under section 111 of the Customs Act and as to why the penalty be not imposed under section 112 of the Customs Act - violation of principles of natural justice - non-availment of opportunity for want of necessary pre-deposit required under section 29E of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- Reliance is placed on the decision of M/s. Cannon India Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, [2022 (8) TMI 888 - SC ORDER] whereas the Apex Court has held that DRI has no jurisdiction to issue show cause notice under the Customs Act inasmuch as only such officer of Customs who has been assigned specific function would be a “a proper officer” under the Central Government in terms of section 2(34) of the Act to issue notice, while exercising the powers under section 6 of the Customs Act - Therefore, the show cause notice issued to the petitioner by the DRI is invalid and this decision would be binding to the Courts within the territory of India under Article 141 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, the show cause notice is urged to be quashed.
Considering the fact that essential remedy of appeal is available and it is an efficacious remedy, this Court would prefer not to venture into examining these aspects. According to us, this contention can always be raised before the appellate authority who would also lead to adjudication on factual matrix.
Another contention on the part of the petitioner is that he was not in India and was caught at New Delhi Airport and when the show cause notice was issued, it was served upon his wife. When he returned to India in February, 2016, he was caught in connection with another case and because of that he was not in a position to contest the allegations levelled in the show cause notice - HELD THAT:- Much emphasis is placed on the ground of violation of principles of natural justice, as penalty imposed here is based on the statement of co-accused and without any independent corroborative evidence. Application of section 9D of the Central Excise Act and section 138B of the Customs Act is made which makes it mandatory for the Commissioner to conduct the examination-in-chief before admitting the statements and evidence. Section 138B of the Customs Act makes it clear that no statement can be used as evidence unless and until the contents are affirmed by the person before the Commissioner.
As the gold is not prohibited for import, therefore, the action of Commissioner in confiscating such gold is illegal, according to the petitioner. It is urged that Commissioner has failed to recognise the settled position that gold is not prohibited for import and it is only restricted. Therefore, the chance ought to have been given to redeem the same with fine.
Penalty imposed of Rs. 50 lakhs upon the petitioner under section 12B of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:-The appeal was preferred before the the CESTAT with an application for dispensing with the per-deposit of the amount of fine and penalty imposed upon the petitioner. However, the same was rejected by the CESTAT essentially on the ground that in absence of the amount of the pre-deposit and penalty, the appeal is not maintainable.
Absence of any opportunity of cross-examination and gross violation of the principles of natural justice in adjudication of proceedings - HELD THAT:- Denial of right to cross-examine the witnesses whose statements recorded under section 108 of the Customs Act and of those officers who recorded such statements is much emphasized upon - The cross-examination, in a given scenario, is held not to be an absolute right and the facts of every matter shall need to be regarded by the Court at the time of considering the request for cross-examination. This Court also is not oblivious of the fact that without proving the version of the witnesses in examination-in- chief, it is impermissible for the prosecution/department to take into account their evidence given in the form of oral statements. Section 9D of the Customs Excise Act and Section 138B of the Customs Act require fulfillment of these requirements. However, these being legal issues can be raised at any stage before any judicial or quasi judicial authority and they need to be regarded by those authorities. Again, non-availment of opportunity whether would also cause serious prejudice to the parties, also, can be well appreciated by the Appellate authority as and when raised.
Thus, what can be gathered is that service of show cause notice appears to be valid and thereafter also, couple of notices were served upon the petitioners for availing an opportunity of hearing at the time of adjudication of the show cause notice and it emerges prima facie that the petitioner has not participated. Whether the reasons put forth for non-participation, even through the authorised representative, could surely be agitated in appeal for the Appellate authority to adjudicate - it is not convincing that there has been any breach of principles of natural justice much less gross violation at the time of service and thereafter of adjudication of the show cause notice. However, the fact remains that the participation on the part of the petitioner was missing when OIO was finalized.
Non-availment of opportunity for want of necessary pre-deposit required under section 29E of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- The appellate authority could not adjudicate on merits. Therefore, the balance needs to be struck by allowing the petitioner to approach the appellate authority by furnishing the amount of predeposits of the requisite amount. Resultantly, without making any interference with the OIO, all the petitioners are permitted to approach the appellate authority.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (2) TMI 287 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Time Limitation for issuance of order - Revocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - levy of penalty - order issued beyond the period of ninety days from the receipt of the Offence Report - petitioner also contends that the impugned order was passed on an erroneous premise that the petitioner has acted as a Customs Broker in respect of the exports under certain shipping bills - HELD THAT:- In the present case, the Show Cause Notice dated 24.01.2020 issued to the petitioner is, clearly, erroneous as it proceeds on the basis that the Show Cause Notice dated 22.10.2019 is the Offence Report - Mr. Kumar, the learned counsel for the respondent does not dispute that the Show Cause Notice dated 22.10.2019 is in respect of the same offence as the subject matter of the Offence Report dated 16.02.2015. It is apparent that the proceedings for revocation of the petitioner’s license were commenced beyond the period of ninety days from the date of the Offence Report.
Since the notice in this case, was issued beyond the period of ninety days from the Offence Report, the impugned order cannot be sustained - It is also not disputed that the petitioner has not acted as a Customs Broker in respect of exports under the offending Shipping Bills.
Petition allowed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 286 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Rejection of petitioner's request for claiming duty drawback - rejection on the ground that the petitioner has not satisfactorily established the reasons for delay in filing the duty drawback claim - Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 - non-speaking order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- Learned Standing Counsel for the respondents cannot rely upon the documents filed along with these writ petitions, that too, when the first respondent has not considered the same on merits in the impugned orders, which is a cryptic and a non-speaking order. Any improvement of the impugned order cannot be made by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents. Therefore, the contentions of the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents before this Court is rejected.
It is also not in dispute that the petitioner has satisfied all the statutory requirements for claiming duty drawback as per the provisions under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. When the petitioner has given detailed reasons as to why they were unable to file the duty drawback claim within the prescribed time, the first respondent ought to have considered the said reasons objectively, but as seen from the impugned orders, no reasons have been given for rejecting the petitioner’s reasons for non filing of the duty drawback claim on time - Being a cryptic and a non-speaking order, the impugned orders will have to be necessarily quashed and the matter has to be remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law.
The matter is remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law. The first respondent shall pass final orders within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order after giving due consideration to the contentions of the petitioner in his written submissions dated 03.11.2022 and after affording one personal hearing to the petitioner.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (2) TMI 285 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Rejection of refund of Extra Duty Deposit - applicability of principles of natural justice - petitioner contended that EDD was in the nature of a deposit and therefore, the principle of unjust enrichment ere inapplicable to deposit of EDD - request for refund was treated as a fresh application under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and was rejected by the impugned order on the ground that the same was not filed within limitation - HELD THAT:- Respondent no. 1 has misdirected itself in considering the petitioner’s request for refund of the balance amount of ₹13,53,326/- made on 22.07.2022 as a fresh application. The said request was in continuation of the proceedings relating to the application for refund dated 19.02.2019. Thus, the question of the petitioner’s claim being barred by limitation does not arise.
The authorities are fully aware of the orders passed by the Supreme Court in Suo Motu Writ Petition (Civil) No.3 of 2020 [2021 (3) TMI 497 - SC ORDER] and this Court cannot countenance the approach of the respondents to insist that the orders passed by the Supreme Court be necessarily quoted by applicants for availing their benefit. The respondents are bound to consider the orders passed by the Supreme Court notwithstanding that the same are not referred to by the applicants.
The impugned order dated 07.11.2022 is set aside. The respondent is directed to forthwith process the petitioner’s request for refund within a period of two weeks from today - Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 284 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Penalty u/s 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962 on steamer agent - Confiscation of vessel - evasion of duty with acts of omission and commission - HELD THAT:- There is no doubt that, in accordance with section 148 of the Customs Act, 1962, the steamer agent, as the appellant herein is, assumes full responsibility on behalf of person-incharge of conveyance for compliance with chapter VI of Customs Act, 1962. It is on record, however, that the confiscation of the said vessel for alleged violations of chapter VI of Customs Act, 1962 as well as the duty liability arising from misuse of ‘ship stores’ and ‘bunkers’ in the findings of the adjudicating authority had been set aside by the Tribunal. In such circumstances, the related act of wrong-doing urged by the Learned Authorised Representative has ceased to be and consequently there is no scope for imposition of penalty under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 on the representative of person-in-charge of conveyance.
Appeal allowed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 245 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Levy of penalty under Section 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962 - whether the orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and the learned Tribunal are unreasoned and non-speaking orders? - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The impugned decision turned on findings of facts as noted by the Adjudicating Authority. The order-in-appeal dated 13.05.2015 is a short order, however, it is not an unreasoned one. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had found no infirmity with the decision of the Adjudicating Authority and its findings that certain parties were involved in the illegal export of Red Sandalwood/Red Sanders and therefore, did not interfere with the order passed by the Adjudicating Authority. The learned Tribunal has also not found any grounds to interfere with the findings recorded by the Adjudicating Authority.
The learned Tribunal concluded that the appellant was remiss as he had not made proper enquiry. The learned Tribunal had also observed that the appellant was aware of the prohibited goods and accordingly dismissed the appeals.
It is clear from the impugned order that the learned Tribunal had found no reason to interfere with the findings recorded by the Adjudicating Authority.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 244 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Grant of stay in a case as the present would be different from examining the appeal on merits - import of Solar Inverter - benefit of Notification No.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 - Revenue sought for review of the order of the Commissioner, which was not accepted and finally, the order in Annexure-D was questioned before the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, South Zonal Bench, Bangalore - HELD THAT:- A few grounds, both on the product and applicability of the exemption notification, have been stated by the Revenue before the Tribunal. The Tribunal is the final authority on a finding of fact. In the case on hand, the consideration that is weighed with authority or the Tribunal for granting or refusing stay is not always akin to the consideration the authorities would be taking for deciding the main case.
It is appreciated that the Tribunal would have felt that the effort in disposing of the stay petition and the appeal could be the same. But what misses the attention of the Tribunal is that the argument will certainly be different in deciding a stay petition and the appeal. Though it has not been categorically stated that the appeal has been heard and disposed of along with the stay petition, from the reasons recorded by the Tribunal, we are satisfied that the appeal ought not to have been disposed for hearing and without posting the appeal for considering, disposing of the appeal is unsustainable. This material irregularity has certainly vitiated the consideration.
The order under appeal warrants interference, and, accordingly, set aside. The matter is remitted to the Tribunal for consideration and disposal within three months from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment.
-
2023 (2) TMI 243 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Smuggling - foreign origin gold bars - absolute confiscation - penalty - confiscation of Mercedes car under Section 115 and its redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 10 lakhs correct - fine of Rs. 50 lakhs imposed on the appellant under Section 112(b)(i) - burden to prove - prohibited goods or not - Whether the seized gold was correctly confiscated? - HELD THAT:- Section 123 shifts the burden of proof from the Department to the person from whom the goods have been seized in respect to gold and certain other goods which are notified. Undisputedly, the bars in question were of gold and they had foreign markings and were packed in a bag with the address of the jeweller in Dubai. The bars were examined by an expert and were held to be foreign origin gold of 995 purity. All these gave the officers reasonable belief that the gold bars were of foreign origin. Since import of gold is restricted, if foreign origin gold bars were legally imported it was incumbent upon the importer and any other person to whom they may have been sold to show documents that the gold was legally imported.
The seizure of the gold from the possession of the appellant as recorded in the Panchnama and admitted in the statement which is also affirmed the appeal before us by the appellant itself is undisputed. It is also undisputed that it had foreign markings and has been certified by the jewellery expert to be of foreign origin. The only question which remains is if it was legally imported or smuggled and the burden of proving that it was legally imported rests upon the appellant. There is not even an assertion in the application before the learned CMM by the appellant that he had legally imported the gold. Therefore, we find no force in the submission of the appellant that his statement under Section 108 cannot be relied upon.
The other submission made by the learned counsel for the appellant is that nature of the gold is that he had requested Shri Ahadees to supply legally imported gold and, therefore, it should be considered so. This submission cannot be accepted for the reason for the simple reason that there was no documents at the time of seizure to show that the gold was legally imported. No documents have been produced till date to show that the gold was legally imported - the undisputed gold is of a foreign origin and was reasonably believed to be smuggled by the officers and was seized and the appellant had not discharged his burden to show that it was not smuggled gold. Therefore, the absolute confiscation of the disputed gold needs to be upheld.
Mercedes car - HELD THAT:- The learned counsel for the appellant agrees that the appellant represents the company M/s PRK Diamond Pvt. Ltd. Since the show cause notice was issued to the appellant proposing confiscation of the car, we find no force in the argument that notice should have been issued to M/s PRK Diamond Pvt. Ltd. It is not open to the appellant to represent M/s PRK Diamond Pvt. Ltd. to seek release of the car but claim that he does not represent M/s PRK Diamond Pvt. Ltd. when it comes to receiving show cause notice and answering it. The car was allowed redemption on payment of fine of Rs. 10 lakhs - this is a reasonable amount of redemption fine imposed, if the appellant chooses to redeem the car.
Penalty under Section 112(b)(i) of Rs. 50 lakhs imposed upon the appellant - HELD THAT:- s per Section 112(b) any person who acquires possession of or is in any way concerned in carrying, removing, depositing, harbouring, keeping, concealing, selling or purchasing, or in any other manner dealing with any goods which he knows or has reason to believe are liable to confiscation under section 111 is liable to penalty. In case of prohibited goods this penalty shall not exceed the value of the goods or Rs. 5000/- whichever is greater. In this case, it is undisputed that the appellant was in possession of the confiscated gold. Even in the appeal before us, the appellant is not disputing this fact. Therefore, he is squarely covered by Section 112(b)(i). The value of the confiscated gold is Rs. 1,84,16,505.68. The penalty imposed is only Rs. 50 lakhs - this amount of penalty is reasonable and calls for no interference.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 242 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Exemption from the whole of the duty of customs - Import of Machinery as Gift - bilateral Agreement - imported plant and machinery from the European Union for setting up a Fruit Processing Plant at Muvattupuzha in Kerala - exemption notification dated 18.07.1994 - whether the import could be treated as a free gift to enable the appellant to claim the benefit of the exemption notification?
HELD THAT:- In view of the amendment incorporated in clause (b) of clause 3 on 08.03.2002, the capital investment cost of the Agro-Processing Component (85%) was to be provided as a ‘grant’ and the working capital (15%) was to be provided as a loan to be repaid in a revolving fund - In the present case, the machinery and plant was a capital investment and so the cost was provided as a grant. A grant has been defined in Chambers Dictionary as something bestowed, an allowance; ‘a gift’.
It would be seen from the Agreement that though initially the cost of Agro-Processing Component under clause 3 of the Annexure-A (Technical and Administrative Provisions) was to be transferred to the Project by the Government of India as a loan of 4.108 million euro, but subsequently an amendment was incorporated on 08.03.2002. The amended clause 3 provides that the Agro-Processing Component was increased from 4.108 million euro to 7.196 million euro and out of this amount, the capital investment cost (85%) was to be provided as a ‘grant’ and the ‘working capital’ (15%) was to be provided as a loan to be repaid in a revolving fund. Thus, the plant and machinery, which would be included in the capital investment cost, was provided as a ‘grant’ which means as a gift. Clause 8 of the exemption notification would, therefore, be satisfied.
This factual portion is also reflected from the Certificate dated 09.11.1999 given by the European Union. The Certificate clearly mentions that the plant and machinery was gifted free of cost to the Programme under the bilateral Agreement between the Government of India and the European Union - the Commissioner (Appeals) failed to notice the amendment made in clause 3(b) of Agreement while recording a finding that the plant and machinery was provided on a loan which was to be repaid.
On a plain reading of the Agreement, it is clear that clause 8 of the exemption notification stands satisfied - appeal allowed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 241 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Reduction in quantum of redemption fine and penalty - mis-declaration of imported goods - goods found as old & used Hard Disc Drive 500 GB for desktop & laptop and the quantity was also found as 20,512 against the declared 8,000 in the import documents - 2000 pcs of the RAM were also found which were not declared in the import documents - HELD THAT:- There is no merit in the grounds of appeal raised by revenue, as there can be no estoppel against law. The appellant have exercised their statutory right of appeal which is not liquidated, as they have submitted at the adjudication stage they are ready to pay fine and penalty.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 218 - SC ORDER
Jurisdiction of High Court does to interfere in the matter of setting aside the seizure of import consignment - HELD THAT:- The operation of the order impugned was stayed by this Court on 6th September, 2021. In fact, in the order dated 21st October, 2021, this Court had indeed expressed the opinion, albeit tentatively, that the impugned order cannot be sustained in law. In the said order, at the request of the learned Additional Solicitor General, the Department was also permitted to carry on the investigation and take consequential steps in that regard.
Now when Order-in-Original has been passed and an appeal challenging the same has been filed, the matter should be left open for examination by the appellate authority in accordance with law. For that matter, suffice would be to observe that none of the observations made in the order impugned or in the orders passed by this Court shall operate prejudicial to the interests of either of the parties. In other words, the appeal shall be considered by the appellate authority on its own merits, uninfluenced by any observations appearing in the impugned order or in this order. To put the record straight, the impugned order dated 26th August, 2021 is set aside but, with the observations foregoing.
Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (2) TMI 217 - SC ORDER
There are no error in the order of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, West Zonal Bench at Ahmedabad in MS SUNRISE TRADERS, JAI DURGA IMPEX, ALISHAN IMPEX, SATISH JINDAL, ADITYA LOOMTEX, TUSHAR TILAK, JMD TRADING CO, MOHIT SOIN, AJAY HIRALAL VIJ, JAI HANUMAN OVERSEAS, PANKAJ KUMAR KATARIA, PANKAJ KUMAR, SHREE SHYAM INTERNATIONAL AND TUSHAR GUPTA VERSUS C.C. -MUNDRA [2022 (1) TMI 468 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD].
Appeal dismissed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 216 - SC ORDER
Redemption of goods - Whether the first respondent was justified in upholding the levy of redemption fine having concluded that the imported goods were indeed Heave Melting Scrap and therefore, not liable to confiscation? - it was held by the Madras High Court that The subject goods were, thus, as held re-rollable scrap.
HELD THAT:- There are no good ground and reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and hence, the special leave petitions are dismissed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 215 - SC ORDER
Cancellation of Customs House Agent (CHA) licence - HELD THAT:- Having gone through the impugned judgment and order(s) passed by the High Court and the reasoning given, we see no reason interfere with the same in exercise of powers under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
SLP dismissed.
-
2023 (2) TMI 214 - CUSTOMS AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS, MUMBAI
Classification of imported goods - products used in the preparation of animal feed supplements - to be classified under Heading 2309 or under Heading 2936? - HELD THAT:- As per the Rule 1 of the General Rules of Interpretation, the classification of goods shall be determined according to the terms of the headings and any relative section or chapter notes. In the event that the goods cannot be classified solely on the basis of Rule 1 and if the headings and legal notes do not otherwise require Rules 2 through 6 may be applied in order.
While Chapter 29 talks about separate chemically defined compounds, the explanatory notes to HSN provides for products which remain classified in Chapter 29, even when they are not separate chemically defined compounds. There are certain exceptions to the rule that Chapter 29 is limited to separate chemically defined compounds. These exceptions include provitamins and vitamins (including concentrates and intermixtures), whether or not in a solvent - Chapter Heading 2309 is in the nature of a residuary heading as Chapter Note I to Chapter 23 says that the Heading 2309 includes products of a kind not elsewhere specified or included, whereas chapter sub-heading 2936 is a specific heading for vitamins and provitamins. As per the Rule 3(a) of General Interpretation Rules, the specific heading shall prevail over the general heading.
The Hon’ble High Court of Allahabad in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS CGO. VERSUS SONAM INTERNATIONAL SHOP NO. 9 [2010 (10) TMI 120 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], held that vitamins of high concentration used for manufacture of animal feed will be classified under 2936. Admittedly all the products in this case has high concentration of vitamins ranging from 40% to 98%.
Even though, the applicant in their application has stated that these products which they are importing are going to be used in the manufacture of animal feed, as discussed in the preceding paragraphs, vitamin products intended for use in animal feed preparations are not excluded from the ambit of the Chapter 29. Therefore, when confronted with a specific classification entry vis-a-vis a residuary classification entry, one must favour the specific entry. In fact, that the mandate of Rule 3A of the General Rules of Interpretation of Customs Tariff.
The products in this case viz. LUTA.CALPA N 98%, LUTA.E 50, LUTA. 0A/D3 1000/200 PLUS, LUTAVIT A 1000 PLUS, CHOLINC.LSG would merit classification under Heading 2936 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975.
|
