|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 8194 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.
- 2020 (9) TMI 811 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Auction of consignment - order not supplied to petitioner - HELD THAT:- On the last date of hearing i.e. 14th September, 2020, Mr. Dayan Krishnan, learned senior counsel for petitioner had sought time to place on record an undertaking by way of an affidavit. To obviate any future controversy, an authorized representative of the petitioner is directed to meet Terminal Manager, ICD- Tughlakabad, on 22nd September, 2020 and finalise the amount due and payable by the petitioner to the respondent for the said nine containers - Till further orders, the petitioner shall make payment in accordance with the paragraphs 4 (a) and (b) of the affidavit dated 14th September, 2020. List on 28th September, 2020.
- 2020 (9) TMI 810 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Implementation of the order - provisional assessment of goods - import of dry dates - petitioners contend that the respondents are not complying with the aforesaid Orders-in-Appeal, whereas the respondents contend that the aforementioned conditions have not been complied with by the petitioners - HELD THAT:- Without getting into the merits of this controversy, the writ petitions are disposed of with the direction that, if the aforesaid three conditions are complied with by these petitioners, namely the bonds are given, the bank guarantees are given and the phytosanitary certificates are given to the concerned authorities, the goods in question shall be released by the respondent authorities within a period of one week from the date of receipt of the same. Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (9) TMI 809 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Legality and validity of the seizure of goods - the case of the Department against the writ applicants is that the goods, i.e, scraps in different forms seized from the premises were found to be imported without payment of appropriate customs duty by wrongfully availing the benefit of the notification - HELD THAT:- The larger issues, more particularly the legality and validity of the seizure, shall be examined on the next date of the hearing including the preliminary objection raised on behalf of the respondents as regards the alternative remedy available to the writ applicants. However, having regard to the submissions made by Mr. Parikh, we would like to balance the equities at this stage. We would like to see that the writ applicants do not have to suffer a huge loss in their business, and at the same time, we must also ensure that the....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 808 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Power of Customs Officers as Police officers - Power to arrest - Classification of offences u/s 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 - High Seas Sale - It appears from the materials on record and the pleadings that the respondent no.2 is also contemplating to institute criminal prosecution for the offences punishable under Sections 132 and 135 respectively of the Customs Act, 1962. HELD THAT:- Any person can be arrested for any offence under the Customs Act, 1962, by the Customs Officer, if such officer has reasons to believe that such person has committed an offence punishable under Section 132 or Section 133 or Section 135 or Section 135A or Section 136 of the Customs Act, 1962, and in such circumstances, the Customs Officer is not obliged to follow the dictum of the Supreme Court as laid in the case of Lalitha Kumari (supra). When any person i....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 752 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Request for return of passport - Smuggling - Gold Bars - It is challenged only on the ground that if the passport is returned to the respondent, he will flew away from India and there is possibility of abscond and he will not return to India for investigation - Sections 135(1) (a), 135 (1) (b), 135(1) (i) (a) of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- A solution has to be found within the parameters of law to deal with the case of the petitioners. The petitioners will have to face proceedings under the Customs Act for the alleged violations. Therefore, their passports cannot be handed over to them at this juncture. In order to strike an harmonious balance between the necessities of law and the requirements of the petitioners to have their stay in India validated so as to avoid being prosecuted under the Foreigners Act, 1946, the FRRO, Chennai, wh....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 751 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
MEIS Scheme - mistake while submitting Shipping bills - the petitioner's representative instead of entering 'Y' for each line item, selected 'Y' only for the first line item and did not make any selection for remaining items - contention of respondents is that the Director General of Foreign Trade cannot be blamed for the lapse committed by the writ petitioner - HELD THAT:- The exporter ought not to suffer for the inadvertent mistake committed by him. When the filing was done manually, Section 149 of Customs Act provides for effecting corrections. Now, there has been a shift from the manual system to EDI System. In the EDI System, approval is also automated. Since the petitioner had opted only for 'Yes', as far as the first line item is concerned and did not opt for the remaining items, by system default, for t....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 716 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Service of SCN - respondent nos.2, 3, 4 & 5 states that her clients have received confirmation from D.C. SVB, New Delhi to the effect that no notice from other customs locations have been issued to the petitioner - HELD THAT:- Keeping in view the fact that since only one show cause notice has been issued to the petitioner by Delhi Customs, this Court is of the view that the procedure prescribed under paragraph 9.2 of the Circular dated 09th February, 2016 is not applicable to the present case. Consequently, the letter dated 17th January, 2020 issued by respondent no.5 is quashed and the respondent no.2 is directed to expeditiously adjudicate the Show Cause notice dated 10th July, 2018 preferably within a period of six months, in accordance with law. Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (9) TMI 715 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT
Smuggling - Betel Nuts - Whether the goods are indigenous or imported, however pending adjudication above goods were released provincially under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 on a condition that the petitioner will deposit ₹ 70.51 lakh? - HELD THAT:- At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner put forth the Intimation Notice for my perusal under Section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962 for disposal of the subject Dry Betel Nuts. He submitted that this notice deserves to be stayed, since condition precedent for provincial release, is sub-judice before this Court. Hearing of the petition is deferred, stand over to 30-09-2020. Till next date the Notice dated 8th September, 2020 issued by the Superintendent CPF, Champai under Section 150 of the Customs Act, 1962 is stayed.
- 2020 (9) TMI 693 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the appeal has not been admitted nor any notice has been issued to it as yet, cannot be entertained in the present petition - Release of seized goods - release sought on the premise that the statutory appeal filed by the petitioner against the order of seizure under Section 128 of the Act has been decided in its favour - Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- As far as prayer in the present writ petition to give effect to the order passed by the Commissioner under Section 128 of the Act is concerned, the appropriate course of action for the petitioner would be to approach the adjudicating authority, which has passed the order of confiscation of goods, to give effect to the order passed by the appellate authority i.e. for releasing the seized good....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 563 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Smuggling - Gold - allegation is that along with the other accused namely Shahbaz and Abdul Lais, the petitioner/3rd accused used ladies as carriers for smuggling gold through various Airports in India - retraction of statements - offence punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The Customs Officials are not Police Officers. The confession, though retracted, is an admission and binds on the petitioner. Statement given under Section 108 of the Customs Act, which is inculpatory, is not hit by the provisions under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Whether the statements of the co-accused could be used against the petitioner is a question to be determined by the trial court. It is, therefore, premature for this Court to discard the materials against the petitioner in the form of statements under Section 108 of....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 562 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Defreezing of Bank Accounts of petitioner (third party) - freezing of account on the ground of illegally availed Integrated Goods and Services Tax (IGST) refund of an exporter was deposited in the bank account of the petitioner - section 110(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- Section 110(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 was inserted in the Customs Act by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019 with effect from 01.08.2019 - Evidently, the action of freezing the bank account i.e., on 07.12.2018 was undertaken prior to insertion of the aforesaid provision w.e.f. 01.08.2019. Prima-facie this provision may not be applicable to the case of the petitioner. Additionally, as per the condition mentioned in sub-section (5) of section 110, the initial period of freezing the bank account i.e., not exceeding six months has expired long back. That apart, even if....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 528 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Duty Drawback - non-realisation of sale proceeds - Failure to approach the Reserve Bank of India for obtaining the necessary extension - Rule 16A of the Drawback Rules - HELD THAT:- The issue as to whether the extension is granted by the Reserve Bank of India or whether the petitioner is entitled for the relief otherwise, being factual issues, could be determined by the Revisional Authority himself, in line with the decision relied upon by the learned Standing Counsel for the respondents in ZAZ AND ZAZ PVT. LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND 2 OTHERS [2014 (3) TMI 840 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT], wherein the Hon'ble Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court was also of the view that factual aspects requires to be verified by the Authorities and accordingly remanded back the matter. The matter is remanded back to the third respondent herein. ....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 450 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Provisional release of car imported - only area of dispute is that according to the petitioner, the imported vehicle is a brand new one whereas according to the respondents, it is a second hand model - HELD THAT:- It is admitted that petitioner has paid the entire duty of ₹ 72,48,875.00 on the declared assessable value of the imported car of ₹ 33,71,569.00. It is also an admitted position that the vehicle is under seizure, seizure being made on 20.03.2020 though under detention since 11.01.2020 and that it has neither been confiscated nor adjudication has commenced. Section 110 of the Act deals with seizure of goods, documents and things. Sub-section (1) says that if the proper officer has reason to believe that any goods are liable to confiscation under the Customs Act, he may seize such goods. While we are not called upon to....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 422 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Constitutional Validity of Section 25(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 as amended Finance Act, 2016 - Increase in duty on crude palm oil from 30% to 44% - Electronic publication of notification versus publication of notification in the official gazette - vires of Notification no.29 dated 1st March 2018. Whether the petitioners would be liable to pay increased rate of duty as per the Notification issued under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act on the same day on which the bills of entry were field by the petitioner, but the notification was made available in official gazette in electronic form subsequently, in view of the provisions of Section 25(4) of the Customs Act as amended by the Finance Act, 2016? - Whether the provisions of Section 25(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 as amended by the Finance Act, 2016 is arbitrary, illegal, ultra vires and un....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 421 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Smuggling - import of plant khat - Narcotics drugs or not - only ground raised by the petitioner is that the alleged package was booked prior to the notification i.e., on 24.02.2018. Therefore, no offence can be tried as on the date of booking of the package and the substance was not banned in India - HELD THAT:- In the case on hand, the package was reached the shores of Mumbai on 03.03.2018 and thereafter it reached the Foreign Post Office, Meenambakkam, Chennai on 05.03.2018. Thereafter, on 12.03.2018, the parcel was examined and referred to Postal Appraisal Department. Thereafter only on 27.04.2018, in the presence of two independent witnesses, the officer in-charge taken the parcel for examination and found two pink polythene bags containing khat leaves weighing 7.9 kg, addressed to the petitioner herein. Therefore, the commission of ....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 396 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Release of the applicant on bail - Smuggling - Gold Biscuits - prayer of bail opposed on the ground that as the applicant could not show any relevant paper regarding the article (gold) obtained from the possession of the applicant of such quantity, it is deemed proper that the said material was being smuggled - statement recorded under Section 108 of the Act, admissible evidence or not - HELD THAT:- Considering to the nature of offence, its gravity and the evidence in support of it and the overall circumstances of this case, this Court is of the view that the applicant has not made out a case for bail. Prayer of Bail rejected.
- 2020 (9) TMI 395 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction - power of Deputy Commissioner (Customs) to freeze the Bank Accounts of petitioner - it is also claimed that no power to issue orders for freezing of bank account was available under the Customs Act, 1962 and the said power had only been introduced by way of amendment to Section 110(5) inserted by the Finance (No.2) Act, 2019, dated 1.8.2019 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, investigation under Central Goods and Service Tax Act is pending against the petitioner company. However, the impugned order has been passed by Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Preventive), in view of the investigation initiated against the petitioner company by Anti Evasion Wing of Central Goods and Service Tax, Commissionerate, Jaipur. Vide impugned order, the bank account of the petitioner company was frozen. The impugned order was passed before the amendment i....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 389 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Extension / renewal of the letter of approval - Rule 18(4)(d) of the Special Economic Zones Rules, 2006 - Whether the Board of Approval could have rejected the application for renewal / extension of letter of approval filed by the petitioners without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners or not? - whether the order passed by the Board of Approval on the basis of the proceeding initiated in the year 2005 against the petitioners for not achieving the positive Net Foreign Exchange Earnings would be relevant factor for rejecting the application for renewal filed by the petitioners while exercising powers under Rule 18(4) of the SEZ Rules, 2006? HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that no opportunity of being heard was afforded to the petitioners before taking decision in the 89th Meeting of the Board of Approval held on 22nd April....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 351 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - appeal has been dismissed on account of non-compliance of mandatory Pre-deposit - Section 129(E) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- This Court after hearing learned counsel for the parties at length is of the considered opinion that the appellate authority was justified in dismissing the appeal on account of non-deposit of mandatory pre-deposit. This Court does not find any reason to interfere with the order passed by the appellate authority, however, it is made clear that in case, the mandatory pre-deposit is made within 30 days from today, the appellate authority shall decide the appeal on merits in accordance with law.
- 2020 (9) TMI 350 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - Section 129A(3) of CA - validity of Compounding Order passed by the Compounding Authority - demand of redemption fine - compounding of offences under Section 137(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 in view of his previous antecedents under the Act - HELD THAT:- A common order was passed by the Tribunal in two appeals being the SHRI NOPAJI LAKHMAJI CHARITABLE TRUST MUMBAI, SHANTILAL JAVERCHAND JAIN VERSUS C.C., AHMEDABAD [2019 (6) TMI 1461 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] and from which the present appeal arises before us. Against the order passed by the Tribunal in SHRI NOPAJI LAKHMAJI CHARITABLE TRUST MUMBAI, the Revenue had come before this Court by way of THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS VERSUS M/S. NOPAJI LAKHMAJI CHARITABLE TRUST, MUMBAI [2020 (4) TMI 10 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT]. A coordinate Bench of this Court vide order d....... + More
........
|
