2017 (8) TMI 510 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Versus M/s. Partap steel rolliing mills
Maintainability of appeal - Remittance of duty - section 23 of Customs Act, 1962 - Held that - The dispute regarding short delivery of scrap was found to be involved any disputed question of facts which, in an opinion of the Court, cannot be gone into in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution - appeal dismissed being not maintainable........ + More
2017 (8) TMI 504 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
All India Ceramic Glaze And Glass Frit (Mixture) Manufactu & 8 Versus Union of India
Import of restricted item - Boric acid used for non-insecticidal purposes - restrictions brought about on import of Boric acid by Agriculture Ministry via notification dated 7.4.2006 amending the import policy by amending the Schedule - case of petitioner is that it is not within the power of the Government of India to impose such restriction - whether the Ministry of Agriculture has power to bring such restrictions on import of Boric Acid for no....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 433 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
M/s. C.J. Shah & Co., Apurva M. Shah Versus The Union of India, The Commissioner of Customs (Import) , The Settlement Commission, Customs & Central Excise, Addl. Bench Mumbai
Maintainability of petition - adjustment towards antidumping duty on the imported goods - time limitation - Section 28 of the Customs Act - Held that - Admittedly the said amount was adjusted by making voluntary payment along with others by the Petitioner though it was time barred. The law is settled that the Revenue Department/Authorities are not required to issue a demand beyond 5 years period under Section 28 of the Customs Act. By impugned or....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 432 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
M/s. Wipro GE Healthcare Private Limited Versus Union of India, Development Commissioner Cochin Special Economic Zone (CSEZ) , The Director, Software Technology Parks of India, Department of Electronics and Information Technology, Director General of Foreign Trade, Deputy Director General of Foreign Trade
Reimbursement of Central Sales Tax (CST) - purchases of Medical Equipments from other suppliers in the course of inter-state Trade and Commerce - denial of benefit on the ground that the goods purchased from EOU - Held that - there is no justifiable reason for the Respondent-Authority to deny such benefit of CST reimbursement to the petitioner -Company merely because the goods in question are purchased from a Unit situated in EOUs/SEZs/EHTP/STPI ....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 431 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Jang Bahadur Versus The Assistant Commissioner of Customs
Absolute Confiscation - Foreign Currency of 13500 Euros and Indian Currency of ₹ 10,00,000/- - The Appellate Commissioner upheld the absolute confiscation of Indian Currency and passed an order on 25.05.2016, by rejecting the order passed by Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) of converting of absolute confiscation to allowance of confiscation on redemption - whether the respondent can refuse to implement the order passed by the Commissioner ....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 347 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Muscles Fusion Fze Versus The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Import) , Air Cargo Complex, Newdelhi & Others
Re-export of prohibited goods - demurrage/rent charges - Whether the Petitioner is permitted to re-export its consignment of health products without payment of demurrage/rent charges owed to the Cargo handling company? - Held that - There is nothing on record to support the case of the Petitioner that there was a bona fide mistake or that the goods were meant for Singapore and were wrongly brought to India. All the documents on record clearly rev....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 346 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
The Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Versus M/s. Hyundai Heavy Industries Co. Ltd. M/s. Boskalis West-minister Middle East Ltd. M/s. CGG Marine M/s. J.M. Baxi & Co., Shri K.Y. Song, Coordinator (Marine Spread) Shri Arjan Schrijen Shri Serge L, Shore Representative Shri Krishna B. Kotak, Partner M/s. J.M. Baxi & Co. Shri A Pais, Senior Executive and Authorised Signatory M/s. J.M. Baxi & Co. Shri Sandeep Ail Manager (clearing & Forwarding) M/s. J.M. Baxi & Co. Shri S Dhulekar Shri R.M. Bakshi Shri K.C.M. Giri, Shri D.K. Shrivastava
Mis-declaration of goods - imported vessels and barges - confiscation - penalty - Held that - the power and scope of High Court to interfere with the findings so arrived at, by the CESTAT. Having once noted above, we have gone through the reasons while setting aside the order of confiscation and penalty. The CESTAT has considered the issue of port clearance and its procedure, as prescribed under Section 42 (2)(d) read with Section 111(j) of the C....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 257 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
R. Dineshkumar Versus The Assistant Collector of Customs
Seizure of goods - Smuggling - the Criminal Revision Case filed by the respondent was only with regard to the direction issued by the trial Court to return the seized materials and not against the order of acquittal - Held that - the petitioner, through his counsel, sent a notice dated 27.03.2002 demanding the payment of sale proceeds along with interest. This was received by the office of the respondent on 01.04.2002 as evidenced by the office s....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 207 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) Versus Suren International Ltd.
Jurisdiction - power to allow refund of the warehousing charges - Whether the CESTAT was justified in holding that the Respondent was not liable to pay rent/warehousing charges in view of the fact that the ownership of the goods remained with it? - Held that - It is plain from the impugned order of the CESTAT, that there is no mention of the provision of law in terms of which the CESTAT has granted relief to the Respondent. This is a matter for c....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 92 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Another Versus Union of India & Others
Duty Drawback claim - supplementary claim - The petitioner had exported prime mild steel concast billets by two separate shipping bills bearing nos. 5318141 and 5318142 both dated July 12, 2006. The dispute is in respect of shipping bill no. 5318141. The petitioner being entitled to a duty drawback of ₹ 36,10,796/- in respect of the disputed bill had lodged its claim. The same has been denied at the revisional stage - Held that - the claim ....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 57 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
M/s Samsung India Electronics Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India And 3 Others
Reimbursement of Central Sales Tax (CST) - Validity of Circular dated 14.01.2015 issued by the respondent no.3 Director, Software Technology Parks of India, Department of Electronics and Information Technology, Ministry of Communication and Information Technology, Government of India - reimbursements on goods purchased from EOUs or from Special Economic Zone - authority to process the claim - Held that - It is only in respect of the benefit of de....... + More
2017 (8) TMI 12 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Yu Televentures Pvt. Ltd. Versus Union of India & Others
Refund claim - excess payment of CVD - principles of unjust enrichment - whether the claim of the Petitioner that it had not passed on the incidence of CVD in respect of the above B/Es for 27th March, 2015 to 31st March, 2015 to the customer was supported by proper documentation? - Held that - there was no reason whatsoever for Respondent No. 4 not to accept the very same documents in respect of the imports between 27th March, 2015 and 31st March....... + More
2017 (7) TMI 1025 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Sarfaraz Mahammed Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Airport & Administration)
Imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) and Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - high value electronic items - Held that - The provisions of Sections 112(a) and 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 are sought to be attracted in the present case by the impugned order. As the petitioner had allegedly successfully smuggled goods into India on other occasions, the adjudicating authority assumes that the petitioner is guilty of smuggling of the value as indi....... + More
2017 (7) TMI 976 - DELHI HIGH COURT
M/s Suncity Sheets Pvt. Ltd. Versus The Designated Authority & Others
Maintainability of petition - alternative remedy of appeal - whether hot rolled or cold rolled of all grades/series; whether or not in plates, sheets, or in coil form or in any shape, of any width, of thickness 1.2 mm to 10.5 mm in case of hot rolled coils, 3 mm to 10.5 mm in case of hot rolled plates & sheets; and upto 6.75 mm in case of cold rolled flat products? - Held that - reliance placed in the case of Hindustan Lever Ltd. Now Know As ....... + More
2017 (7) TMI 975 - DELHI HIGH COURT
USG Boral Building Products (I) Pvt Ltd. Versus Union of India & Others
Levy of ADD - Plain Gypsum Plasterboard - imported from China PR, Indonesia, Thailand, and UAE - N/N. 26/2017-Cus.(ADD) dated 7th June, 2017 - whether the impugned notification, dated 7th June, 2017, is sustainable in law in view of the interpretation of Section 9A(5) of the CTA by the Supreme Court in Kumho Petrochemicals Company Limited. 2017 (6) TMI 526 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA , where it was held that Section 9A(5) of the Act and its proviso ....... + More
2017 (7) TMI 974 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
M/s. Brite Garments Versus Dy. Commissioner of Customs (EPCG)
Benefit of exemption from basic Customs Duty - CVD - case of respondent is that Circular Knitting Machines imported by the petitioner are only (Knitted) Fabric Making Machines and are not required for manufacture of Garments - Held that - the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata Vs. Rupa And Co. Ltd., 2004 (7) TMI 90 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA wherein the Hon ble Supreme Court while considering the similar facts wit....... + More
2017 (7) TMI 883 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
M/s. Sri G.P.R. Leathers, Proprietor Shri G. Prakash Reddy, M/s. Parveen Leather Exports, rep. by its Partner Shri. Jaffer Siddique Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Exports) , The Deputy Commissioner of Customs
Release of seized goods - finished leather - case of Revenue is that as finished leather, as per the extant policy, is freely exportable, while, generally, unfinished leather i.e. hides, skins, leather - tanned and untanned, are subject to export duty at the rate of 60 - Held that - This Court, after taking into consideration its earlier order, disposed of the writ petitions by order dated 25.1.2017 observing that seeking security in the form of ....... + More
2017 (7) TMI 882 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Deepak Kumar Versus The Principal Commissioner of Customs
Penalty u/s 112 (b)(1) of CA - smuggling of gold bars - It is alleged in the SCN that the petitioner has abetted the alleged illegal transaction of dealing in gold bars knowingly that they are smuggled. To the show cause dated 25.10.2014, the petitioner caused a reply on 15.01.2015 refuting the allegations - principles of natural justice - Held that - the petitioner is not questioning the statutory competency or jurisdiction of the adjudicating A....... + More
2017 (7) TMI 834 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
M/s. Sri G.P.R. Leathers, Proprietor Shri G. Prakash Reddy, M/s. Parveen Leather Exports Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Exports) , The Deputy Commissioner of Customs
Provisional release of detained goods - the Department is insisting upon furnishing of bank guarantee for the penalty amount, etc. - Held that - seeking security in the form of bank guarantee is uncalled for and in a sense, dilutes the very essence of the order - the writ petitions are disposed of by directing the respondents to grant provisional release of the goods subject to the petitioners complying with the conditions imposed by this Court i....... + More
2017 (7) TMI 833 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
M/s. N.S. Plasters Versus The Principal Commissioner of Customs, The Deputy Commissioner of Customs
Issuance of detention certificate - Detention of goods - storage of goods u/s 49 of CA - Held that - the suspension of imported goods was on account of an application being made by the Right Holder under Rule 5 of the IPR Rules. Though such an application was filed and the same was registered under due compliance of the conditions under Rule 5(a) and (b) of IPR Rules, the Right Holder did not participate in the proceedings. Therefore, the second ....... + More
