|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 9992 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote and Decision etc.
-
2023 (11) TMI 1092
Refund of the value of the goods that were seized and confiscated - Auction of goods by the Customs Department - the order of seizure were set aside - petitioner claims for a refund of the complete value of the goods and not the value as per the auction - HELD THAT:- No material is placed by the petitioner before the Court to arrive at any conclusion that the estimated value stated in the order of seizure is also a determined value of the goods at the time of its seizure. As it is the petitioner who had procured the goods which were seized and confiscated and later on put up on auction, he would be the best person to have the knowledge about the actual value of the goods as it may have been. The same would also be in conformity with provision of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. But as a dispute has been raised by the petit....... + More
-
2023 (11) TMI 1091
Validity of provisional assessment order - direction to execute bond and furnish bank guarantee for release of the goods imported by the petitioner - Violation of Customs Act or not - HELD THAT:- The order impugned cannot be said to be without jurisdiction even if the order can be said to be against some provisions of the law. When there is provision of appeal, this Court would not assume the jurisdiction of the Appellate Authority on the ground that the order passed by the Assessing Authority is against the law. If the order impugned is not without jurisdiction or it is not in violation of the principles of natural justice, this Court would not entertain the writ petition merely on the ground that in the opinion of the petitioner, the order runs contrary to some provision of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioner is permitted to fil....... + More
-
2023 (11) TMI 1090
Seeking grant of anticipatory bail - bar of Section 82 Cr.P.C. - proclamation issued under Section 82 Cr.P.C. to be published in the manner prescribed under sub Section (2) of Section 82 Cr.P.C. - smuggling of contraband goods of foreign origin like gold - non-cognizable and bailable offence - HELD THAT:- There is nothing on record to indicate that the steps mentioned in sub section (2) and (3) of Section 82 Cr.P.C. have been taken in the present case. Therefore, the proclamation issued under Section 82 (1) Cr.P.C. had not been published in the manner provided under sub Section (3) of Section 82 Cr.P.C. No further statement was signed by the Court as provided in sub Section (3) of Section 82 Cr.P.C. There is no bar against the application for anticipatory bail being considered by this Court on its merits, hence, the merits of the prese....... + More
-
2023 (11) TMI 1089
Redemption for the purpose of Re-export - Absolute Confiscation - Gold bars - goods are not available for redemption and re-export as the Customs Authority already disposed off the gold bars - HELD THAT:- It is admitted that before this order came to be passed on 30.11.2018 in Ext.P10, the Customs has already disposed of seized two gold bars of the petitioner. Therefore, the direction issued by the Principal Commissioner in Ext.P10 order for redemption for the purpose of re-export the gold on payment of redemption fine of Rs.25,00,000/- and reduced penalty of Rs.8,00,000/- are impossible to comply with inasmuch as the goods are not available for redemption and re-export. This fact of disposal of the two gold bars by the Customs Authority was not before the Principal Commissioner Ex-Officio, Additional Secretary to Government of India....... + More
-
2023 (11) TMI 1088
Validity of a Seizure Memo and SCN - respondents have called upon the petitioner to show cause why the gold jewellery and ornaments weighing approximately 20,756 grams should not be confiscated - HELD THAT:- On a holistic consideration of the SCN, the contention cannot be accepted that the same is a manifestation of a predisposed state of mind of the respondents - also it is a well settled principle that courts should desist from entertaining challenges to SCNs and interference being warranted only in exceptional circumstances and where it be found that the same is questioned on jurisdictional grounds. The challenge as mounted in terms of the instant writ petition clearly fails to meet the aforesaid tests as formulated. The challenge laid to the impugned SCN is negativated - the writ petition is disposed off by observing that the competent authority shall endeavour to dispose of and conclude the SCN proceedings within a period of two months from today.
-
2023 (11) TMI 1065
Principles of natural justice - impugned complaint for the alleged commission of the offences punishable under Sections 135(1)(a), 135(1)(b) and 135(1)(c) read with 135(1)(i)(A) of the Customs Act, 1962, passed in a mechanical manner, without observing any reasons - summoning order passed without giving any reasons for the same - HELD THAT:- Considering the contentions raised by the learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, especially the fact that the summoning order has been passed without giving any reasons for the same, this Court is of the opinion that prima facie, the matter requires consideration. Further, in the opinion of this Court, considering that the petitioner has been exonerated by the learned CESTAT on the same set of facts and this fact has not been disclosed before the learned Trial Court, the petitioner....... + More
-
2023 (11) TMI 1040
Appointment of Arbitrator to adjudicate the dispute between the petitioner and the respondents - clause 26 of the e-bidding-cum-e-auction bidding process - Auction of unclaimed imported consignments on behalf of Customs department - HELD THAT:- Prima facie, the respondents are governed by the terms of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009. In terms of Section 48 of the Customs Act, 1962, if any goods are brought into India from a place outside India and are not cleared for home consumption or warehoused or transhipped within thirty days from the date of the unloading thereof at a customs station or within such further time as the proper officer may allow or if the title to any imported goods is relinquished, such goods may, after notice to the importer and with the permission of the proper officer be sold by the person h....... + More
-
2023 (11) TMI 975
Computation of period for filing appeal as time granted by the High Court - whether the word today mentioned in the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench refers to the date on which the order was passed or to the date on which the order was issued to the petitioner (i.e., the date on which the order was made ready)? - Appeal dismissed on the ground of time limitation HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered view that the petitioner will be able to file the appeal only when the order copy is received by them, otherwise, the respondent will not entertain the appeal. Therefore, for all practical purposes, the word today in the order passed by the Hon'ble Division Bench has to be construed as the date on which the order was ready to issue. In such view of the matter, the word today mentioned in the said ord....... + More
-
2023 (11) TMI 922
Seeking grant of bail - Smuggling of Gold Biscuits - occupants of the vehicle failed to give satisfactory answers as to the possession of such gold biscuits without any valid documents - HELD THAT:- The allegation of the prosecution that the accused person in question is involved in smuggling activities, has not been definitely ascertained as far as the present progress of investigation is concerned. Prima facie, it appears that the sections of law quoted in the case registered pursuant to the filing of the FIR may also have no relevance to the facts and circumstances of the case, though, it is too early at this stage to come to any definite conclusion. Since the Customs Act is not in the picture as far as this case is concerned, all the authorities relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner has no relevance for consider....... + More
-
2023 (11) TMI 921
Seeking issuance of detention certificate for waiver of demurrage and container detention charges in terms of Regulation 6 (1) of Handling of Cargo in Customs Areas Regulations, 2009 - import of apples from Turkey - HELD THAT:- In terms of the notification No.5 of 2023 dated 08.05.2023 issued by the respondent Department, no importer can import the goods at CIF value less than or equal to Rs. 50 per kg. However, in the present case the petitioner has imported apples at the rate ranging from Rs. 32 to 35. Therefore, according to the respondent Department, it is not in accordance with law and since the CIF value mentioned in the Bills of Entry is not in terms of the notification No.5 of 2023, the Bills of Entry are kept pending, without ordering clearance from the Port. Since the above said notification has been challenged before va....... + More
-
2023 (11) TMI 920
No reply to SCN filed - Petitioner did not give any response to the show cause notice in spite of the liberty being reserved by the High Court - HELD THAT:- Once when this Court had directed the petitioner to respond to the show cause notice, it was required for the petitioner to have responded to the same and participated in the entire show cause proceedings and thereafter, to take appropriate legal recourse available under the Act - The petitioner cannot be permitted to approach the Writ Court at every stage or as a matter of routine. From plain reading of the contents that is reflected in the show cause notice (Exhibit P2), it would be evidently apparent as regards the allegations levelled against the petitioner which on due consideration is of very serious nature. The instant writ petitions deserve to be and are accordingly r....... + More
-
2023 (11) TMI 919
Principles of natural justice - non-speaking order - Denial of the benefit of S1.No.530 of Notification No.152/2009-Cus, dated 31.12.2009 - HELD THAT:- Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, it is the duty of the Officer to deal with the same in a proper perspective and provide reasons for denying the benefit of the exemption claimed. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the orders appear to be a non speaking order and the same is liable to be set aside. While setting aside the order of the respondents, the matter is remitted back for re-adjudication by the 1st respondent taking into consideration the exemption under Notification No152/2009-Cus dated 31.12.2009 as claimed in the bill of Entry dated 02.10.2020 - petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2023 (11) TMI 773
Jurisdiction - Power of assessing authority u/s 28 of Customs Act to assess the IGST - Import of Wet Dates (Processed dates) - Claim of exemption from payment of IGST under the Notification No.02/2017-Integrated tax (Rate) dated 28.06.2017 - whether the order impugned in Exhibit P-1 is without jurisdiction and void ab initio? - HELD THAT:- Sub-section (15) of Section 2 defines duty which means customs duty. Section 28 empowers the assessing authority to assess and recover the duties not levied, not paid, short levied or short paid or erroneously refunded. Section 28 therefore is not only in respect of duty which means customs duty but, it is in respect of duties which may be applicable on imported item/goods. Even otherwise, the assessment order is defined under Sub-section 2 of Section 2 of the Customs Act empowers the assessing a....... + More
-
2023 (11) TMI 729
Seeking writ of prohibition restraining the respondent from adjudicating SCN - barred by limitation in terms of Section 28(9) of the Customs Act, 1962 or not - conclusion of proceedings in view of second proviso of Section 28(9) of the Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- As per the facts given by the petitioner in the writ petition, the petitioner was aware about the notice dated 05.12.2022 (Annexure P-3) and, thereafter, adjournments were sought by the petitioner for personal hearing as well as for filing reply, as per details given in para No. 7 of the writ petition. The petitioner appeared for the first time for personal hearing on 01.02.2023 and it was made aware of the extension granted for adjudication of the case by Chief Commissioner of Customs under Section 28 (9) of the Act, 1962, vide letter dated 15.12.2022 (Annexure R-1). The said ....... + More
-
2023 (11) TMI 728
Maintainability of petition - principles of Territorial Jurisdiction of High Court - Where the cause of action arisen? - Validity of notifications restricting benefit of exemption - Denial of exemption from customs duty on export of goods - Payment in cash instead of letter of credit as a pre-condition as per the notification - whether a cause of action, wholly or in part, has arisen for exercise of power conferred under Article 226(1) of the Constitution of India has been laid down, in various facts and circumstances, having universal application, in series of decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court? HELD THAT:- In the case of UNION OF INDIA VERSUS ADANI EXPORTS LTD. [ 2001 (10) TMI 321 - SUPREME COURT] , somewhat similar facts as in the present case, had arisen for consideration. On facts, that was a case where claim of the bene....... + More
-
2023 (11) TMI 727
Validity of Show Cause Notice (SCN) = Jurisdiction of Joint Commissioner of Customs (Port) to issue SCN u/s 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Item imported is free or not - HELD THAT:- The petitioner should have responded to the aforesaid show cause notice by giving reply and make out a case before the adjudicating authority. At this stage, no relief granted to the petitioner in this writ petition except extending the time to give reply to the aforesaid impugned show cause notice for a period of two weeks from date and directing the respondent adjudicating authority concerned to consider and dispose of such reply to be filed by the petitioner on the issue of the jurisdiction to issue impugned show cause notice, on the basis of notification dated 15th July, 2020 being Annexure P-2 to the writ petition, by passing a reasoned and speaking or....... + More
-
2023 (11) TMI 624
Imposing antidumping duty on Nylon Filament yarn - Legality of the impugned notifications dated 13 January, 2012 and 19 January, 2017 issued by the Government of India in exercise of the provisions of Section 9A(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - HELD THAT:- The Division Bench of this Court in Gima Manufacturing Pvt. Ltd. Anr. [ 2017 (8) TMI 630 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT ], wherein referring to the decision of the Supreme Court in Union of India Anr. vs. M/s. Kumho Petrochemicals Company Ltd. [ 2017 (6) TMI 526 - SUPREME COURT ] has held that wo things which follow from the reading of the Section 9A(5) of the Act are that not only the continuation of duty is not automatic, such a duty during the period of review has to be imposed before the expiry of the period of five years, which is the life of the Notification imposing anti-dumping....... + More
-
2023 (11) TMI 577
Permission for clearance of consignment for re-export on the entire costs which will be borne by the Petitioner - direction to issue Detention and Demurrage Waiver Certificate in respect of consignment covered. The Petitioner submitted that it has made a representation on 4th September 2023 to Respondent Nos.2 and 3 for considering the request to re-export of the goods which were wrongly sent to India. The said request is pending as of today in spite of various reminders by the Petitioner. The Petitioner further submitted that the present petition can also be treated as representation in addition to the letter dated 4th September 2023 and suitable directions be given to the Respondents to decide the same. HELD THAT:- The Respondents are represented here and they have no objection to the prayer made by the Petitioner. Present....... + More
-
2023 (11) TMI 576
Legality of Auction Notices - sale of goods on an alleged High Sea transaction to Respondent No.7 contrary to the terms and conditions of contract between the Petitioner and Respondent No.5. The Petitioner contends that the representation dated 16th March, 2023 has not been decided by the Respondent No.3 and therefore, suitable directions be issued to Respondent No.3 to decide the same. The Petitioner has further submitted that in addition to the representation dated 16th March 2023, the present petition may also be treated as additional representation objecting to the aforesaid IGM. HELD THAT:- All the Respondents are represented before this Court and have no objection to the aforesaid limited prayer as made by the Petitioner being granted. Respondent No.3 would treat the present Writ Petition along with letter dated 16th March 2023 as representation of the Petitioner on the issue in question - Petition disposed off.
-
2023 (11) TMI 575
Entitlement for amendment in the shipping bill - HELD THAT:- In light of this advisory, if the petitioner makes an application to the competent authority for seeking the amendment of Shipping Bills, the portals shall accept such amendment in light of the aforesaid advisory and grant the rewards that the petitioner would otherwise be eligible under the Scheme. Petition allowed.
........
|
