Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner Other
Citation	--Year-- 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Customs - High Court - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 7730 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 & Decision etc.

• 2019 (11) TMI 778
  
  Advance Authorization scheme - SION - allegation that the party had mis-declared that the exported product has been manufactured out of LSFO - exemption denied on the ground that the said import had been made in violation of para 4.1.15 of the Foreign Trade Policy - It was alleged that the respondent had not used LSFO as an input in the export goods but has used VGO (Vacuum Gas Oil) generated during the refining of crude oil and had subsequently imported permissible input LSFO without payment of customs duty HELD THAT:- Insofar as the parameter of acidity is concerned, there is no inorganic acid present in the crude oil. There is no addition, use or generation of inorganic acids like HCl, H2SO4, HNO3, etc., during the refining process. Thus, there is no possibility of inorganic acid being present in the stream. Moreover, the FCC feed boil....... + More

---

• 2019 (11) TMI 777
  
  Direction to issue a fresh certificate for unused value of the said Duty Free Credit Entitlement Certificate - Benefits under SFIS - HELD THAT:- It is undisputed fact that the petitioner is an Indian Company, incorporated under the provisions of the Indian Companies Act, 1956, which is engaged in providing healthcare services at its hospital to patients to patients in India and also to patients who come to the petitioner’s hospital for medical treatment in India from abroad. It is the specific case of the petitioner that in pursuance to ‘Served from India Scheme’ to avail benefits enumerated in the “Foreign Trade Policy, 2004- 2009’ of the Government of India has filed an application on 22.03.2012 for issue of Duty Free Credit Entitlement Certificate in respect of eligible transactions of the petitioner durin....... + More

---

• 2019 (11) TMI 775
  
  Interrogation of petitioner - Pre-arrest bail - service of SCN - recording of statements - power to arrest the petitioner - HELD THAT:- The petitioners would be interrogated in presence of an advocate at a visible, but not audible distance in relation to the interrogation by the Officers of DRI in accordance with the direction given in the case of VIJAY SAJNANI & ANR. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ANR. [2012 (4) TMI 706 - SUPREME COURT]. Petition allowed.

---

• 2019 (11) TMI 740
  
  Scope of the Show cause notice (SCN) - Issuance of Circular contrary to Decision of CESTAT - Power of CBIC - Confiscation of imported Gold Coins - freely importable or not - the impugned SCN allege that the gold coins imported by the petitioner and Mink, having been imported in violation of the FTP, were not entitled to the benefit of exemption under S. No. 526 of Notification. 152/2019-Cus - demand of differential duty with interest - imposition of penalty - Circular No. 450/67/2019-Cus. IV, dated 9th September, 2019 - HELD THAT:- When the issue of classification, and entitlement to exemption, of the gold coins, imported by the petitioner, and other similarly situated importers, is at large before competent adjudicating authorities, who are in seisin thereof, the CBEC was completely unjustified in issuing the Office Memorandum dated 16th....... + More

---

• 2019 (11) TMI 739
  
  Seizure of import of goods without licence - Refusal to to grant P5 license under Ammonium Nitrate Rules 2012 - special category explosive substance" - Countervailing Duty in terms of N/N.12/2012-CE dated 17.03.2012 - whether this Court while exercising the discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, needs to interfere with the orders passed by the respondents 1 and 2 in refusing to grant P5 license to the petitioner under the Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012? HELD THAT:- Though the petitioner claims that the Ammonium Nitrate is also a fertilizer, it is seen that by virtue of the Notification dated 21.07.2011, issued by the Union of India through its Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Ammonium Nitrate is deemed to be an "explosive" within the meaning of the Explosives Act, 1884, when it has the ch....... + More

---

• 2019 (11) TMI 738
  
  Status Holder Incentive Scheme - Import from the port which was not included in the list, later included - capital goods imported against such scrips are exempted from payment of Custom duties subject to the conditions - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute to the fact that at the time of clearing the goods, the customs did not make any objection by contending that ICD - Arakkonam was not a notified port. However, subsequently, the petitioner was called upon to pay the above said duty in cash, only on the reason that ICD - Arakkonam was not a notified port for the purpose of importation of goods taking benefit under the Notification No.104/2009. In this case, it is not the contention of the Revenue that the petitioner is not entitled to get the benefit of Notification had the ICD - Arakkonam been there in the list of ports originally. In other....... + More

---

• 2019 (11) TMI 737
  
  Non-service of order - case of petitioner is that order has not been served to this petitioner so far and therefore they are unable to prefer an appeal against the aforesaid order - HELD THAT:- It appears that the respondent has already passed an order-in-original bearing no. 55/2019 dated 5th March, 2019, copy whereof has already been served to the authorized representative of this petitioner namely Sh. Raj Kumar, whose statement has also been recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 before the customs authority. There is no question of issuing any direction to the respondent to serve again order-in-original dated 5th March, 2019 to the petitioner - petition disposed off.

---

• 2019 (11) TMI 736
  
  Amendment in shipping bill - time limitation - request for conversion of free shipping bill to advance license shipping bill being rejected on the basis of time limit as prescribed by Circular No. 36/2010-Cus dated 23.09.2010 by the Adjudicating Authority - HELD THAT:- Tribunal was not justified in adopting the approach that it did. Merely because no time limitation is prescribed under Section 149 for the purpose of seeking amendment/ conversion, it does not follow that a request in that regard could be made after passage of any length of time. The same could be made within a reasonable period. The conversion sought by the respondent was from free shipping bill to advance license shipping bill. The petitioner could not have entertained the application for such conversion without examination of the records. It was not fair to expect the De....... + More

---

• 2019 (11) TMI 735
  
  Duty Drawback - No notice was given by the Revisional Authority to the petitioner that there was a defective filing - Revision Application was dismissed only on the ground that court fee of ₹1,000/- was not paid on time - HELD THAT:- The petitioner is claiming a drawback claim of ₹31,04,845/-. A Revision Application was dismissed against which an appeal was also preferred, but the same was also dismissed. A Revision Application was preferred on 14th June, 2016. It appears that Revisional Authority has no Registry, which could point out the defect in filing. No defect could be pointed out in the year 2016; whereas the defect was only pointed out in the year 2018. The court fee of ₹1,000/- was paid on 18th April, 2018. Nonetheless, defect was pointed out on 20th March, 2018 and immediately thereafter, on 18th April, 2018 t....... + More

---

• 2019 (11) TMI 626
  
  Jurisdiction to issue SCN - Discretionary Jurisdiction - applicability of Circular No. 83/2003-Cus., dated 18-9-2003 - HELD THAT:- It is a rule of discretion and it is not a rule of compulsion, but it should be applied with utmost rigour when it comes to matters pertaining to taxes, cess, fees etc., In other words, when it comes to matters pertains to fiscal law. As it is nobody’s case that this case falls under any one of the rare exceptions set out supra, this Court refrains from interfering with the impugned SCN. The impugned SCN is not quashed, but kept in abeyance for period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - petition disposed off.

---

• 2019 (11) TMI 625
  
  Rejection of request to re-export the goods - imposition of ADD - HELD THAT:- In terms of sub-section (25) of Section 2 of the Customs Act, once the goods are cleared for home consumption, they no longer retain the identity of the imported goods. Under the circumstances, once the goods have been cleared, such goods no longer remain to be imported goods and hence, there is no question of re-exporting the goods as has been stated in the affidavit-in-reply filed on behalf of the respondents. It is true that prior to the provisional release of the goods and payment of the relevant duties, the petitioner had sought re-export of such goods, which request came to be turned down. However, now, what the petitioner seeks is to export of goods after the same have been cleared for home consumption. The impugned communication, dated 29-11-2018 of the ....... + More

---

• 2019 (11) TMI 624
  
  Bail application - recovery of gold in the possession of accused-applicant or not - case of accused is that no gold as shown by the prosecution has been recovered from the possession of the accused-applicant and the prosecution story is false and concocted - HELD THAT:- Perusal of record reveals that allegation of recovery of 24 pieces of gold weighting 3983.24 grams of the value of ₹ 1,027,07,110/- as assessed by the evaluator has been alleged to have been recovered from the possession of the accused-applicant. There is sufficient material on record substantiating the allegation against the accused-applicant. The statement of the accused-applicant recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act is admissible in evidence and from the perusal of whole record no fact has been highlighted, which may reflect that power has been exercised ....... + More

---

• 2019 (11) TMI 575
  
  Valuation of imported goods - whether the impugned order of the tribunal without considering the report of and materials relied upon by the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence regarding the value of the goods and in its interpretation of the Customs Valuation (Determination of Value and Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 was erroneous in law and perverse? HELD THAT:- Considering the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant and the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence regarding impleadment of the Directorate as a party in the appeal, we are of the view that this prayer cannot be acceded to as the appellant and the directorate are authorities directly under the central government. List the appeal for hearing on 8th January 2020.

---

• 2019 (11) TMI 574
  
  Principles of Natural Justice - Cross-examination of two co-noticees of this appellant company, were not allowed - demand of differential duty - HELD THAT:- It appears from the facts of the case that while adjudicating the show cause notice, the Commissioner of Customs might have not relied upon the statements of Shri Vineet Saluja or Shri Pradeep Sharma. The process of adjudication of the show cause notice in question is yet to be completed - As and when the show cause notice is adjudicated upon and final order in original is passed, this appellant can always challenge the said order in original inter alia on the ground that the cross-examination of Shri Vineet Saluja and Shri Pradeep Sharma were not allowed. As and when final order in original is passed, this appellant always have an opportunity to prefer an appeal and to challenge the ....... + More

---

• 2019 (11) TMI 573
  
  Revival of appeal before CESTAT - Appeal was dismissed for failure to pre-deposit the amounts as directed under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 - changed circumstances - HELD THAT:- This application which is made before us on the basis that the changed circumstances would warrant the setting aside of earlier orders of the Tribunal, dismissing the Petitioner’s appeal, has not been made before the Tribunal. It is only after such an application is made to the Tribunal and it considers the application for restoration of its appeal on account of having paid the entire penalty and the application is disposed of by an order, that the occasion to approach this Court can arise. There is no order of the Tribunal on the changed circumstances asserted by the Petitioner. The Petitioner has chosen to directly to come to this Court without m....... + More

---

• 2019 (11) TMI 572
  
  Maintainability of appeal - refusal to hear the Appeal filed against the decision/order of the Deputy Commissioner dated 12-4-2016, which conveyed to the Assessee, a clarification issued by the Central Board of Excise & Customs on 22-12-2015, by quoting the same in the said communication dated 12-4-2016 - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal erred in not entertaining the Appeal on merits. The Learned Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 27-2-2015 had directed the Departmental authority to seek suitable clarification from the Board, which was done and the Board issued the clarification on 22-12-2015 which was conveyed to the Assessee by Deputy Commissioner of Customs vide Communication dated 12-4-2016. The said communication cannot be said to be an adjudicating order or decision and it does not decide the rights of the parties - Hence, the Trib....... + More

---

• 2019 (11) TMI 571
  
  Provisional release of seized goods - kerosene - rejection of classification adopted by the respondent - this Court is of the considered view that an order of provisional release should not be entertained at this juncture and more particularly, when the show cause notice dated 26-10-2018 has already been issued - HELD THAT:- This Court, while allowing the appeal and setting aside the order passed by the Learned Single Judge in the present writ petition, is inclined to issue an appropriate direction for the conclusion of adjudication of the said show cause notice. The respondent herein - writ petitioner is directed to complete the adjudication of the said show cause notice dated 26-10-2018 on or before 16-4-2019 - Appeal allowed by way of remand.

---

• 2019 (11) TMI 543
  
  Interest on the delayed refund of Anti Dumping Duty - Relevant time for calculation of interest - calculation of interest from the date of expiry of three months from the making of the applications for refund - HELD THAT:- The Petitioner is entitled to grant of interest in terms of Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 i.e. from the expiry of three months, on amount of ₹ 39,46,441/- from the date of the application for refund of the said amount i.e. 18.01.2013 onwards, till the amount was refunded on 27.02.2018. Similarly, the Petitioner is entitled to interest on the amount of ₹ 24,61,739/- from 27.02.2013 onwards till the date of refund i.e. 27.02.2018. After the review, the DA recommended levy of ADD, and the Central Government accepted the recommendations and levied ADD vide notification No. 15/2013-Cus (ADD), dated 03.07.2....... + More

---

• 2019 (11) TMI 455
  
  Jurisdiction - power of Additional Director General, the Zonal unit to issue SCN - whether the Additional Director General, the Zonal unit, Kolkata of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence had the authority and the power to issue the show-cause notice dated 2nd December, 2017? HELD THAT:- Section 4 of the said Act provides for appointment of any person to discharge the functions of, inter alia, the Commissioner of Customs. The breadth of this section is very wide. Considering the exigency, the government has the power to appoint, inter alia, any person as the Commissioner of Customs. This section provides a parallel and separate mode of recruitment distinct to the procedure mentioned in the said rules under Article 309, to the post of Commissioner. The said section laid down that any person could be appointed as Commissioner of Customs,....... + More

---

• 2019 (11) TMI 454
  
  Application for settlement - Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 - SCN was issued on 07.02.2013 prior to listing of the application in terms of Section 127C(1) of the Act for admission/hearing thereof, raising various queries for response by the petitioner - whether there was any case pending in the Appellate Tribunal or Court which would act as a bar to maintainability of the application in terms of the second proviso to Section 127B? HELD THAT:- The Bench in a similar issue IN RE: SHRI AGARWAL TRADING COMPANY [2001 (2) TMI 481 - SETTLEMENT COMMISSION, MUMBAI] has proceeded to entertain the application based on the interpretation that the word 'case' utilised in the proviso should assume the same meaning as the definition of the word under the Customs Act 1962 which means 'any proceeding under this act or any other act for ....... + More

---