Advanced Search Options
Customs - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 8096 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 (7) TMI 147
Seizure - Smuggling of Gold - offences under sections 133 and 135 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- It is seen that the petitioners have committed very serious offence and the offences registered against the petitioners are clearly attracted. Moreover, they have been arrested and remanded to judicial custody. Further, there is apprehension that the accused persons would have continued in indulging in mobilising gold in huge quantity. Therefore, this Court is not inclined to grant bail to the petitioners, and these criminal original petitions are dismissed.
- 2020 (7) TMI 62
Sealing of Complete Warehouse - grievance of the petitioner is that the rented warehouse of the petitioner, the petitioner has not been able to use the said warehouse despite the petitioner paying the rent to the landlord - HELD THAT:- Mr. Harpreet Singh has taken instructions and he states that the petitioner may approach the respondents today, or tomorrow, and that necessary orders would be passed for placing the goods in question in a bonded warehouse, and deasealing of the petitioner’s warehouse, so that the petitioner could put the same to use. So far as the petitioner’s prayer for a direction to the respondents to pay the rent for the period that the rented warehouse premises have remain seized is concerned, in these proceedings, we are not in a position to pass any such directions as the same would involve determination....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 8
Levy of Anti-Dumping Duty - Import of the Nylon MultiFilament Yarn originating in or exported from China PR, Korea RP, Taiwan and Thailand on provisional assessment basis - It is the case of the writ applicants that the failure on the part of the respondent No.1 is causing injury to the domestic industry - Principles of Natural Justice - opportunity of hearing sought - HELD THAT:- We may only say that the respondent No.1, Union of India, shall look into the recommendations made by the designated authority and take an appropriate decision in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of the receipt of the writ of this order. Application disposed off.
- 2020 (6) TMI 653
Release of Drawback amount payable to petitioner - HELD THAT:- We are surprised to hear that despite the letter dated 19.03.2019 addressed by the respondent No.2/DRI to respondent No.1/ Commissioner of Customs, no steps have been taken by the latter so far to release the drawback amount payable to the petitioner in respect of the Shipping bill dated 09.10.2015 - Mr. Harpreet Singh, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 states that he may be permitted to obtain instructions from the Department. List on 29.06.2020.
- 2020 (6) TMI 616
Validity of investigation conducted by a investigating officer - It is the grievance of the petitioner that the respondent have been harassing him under the guise of an enquiry/investigation and hence, has invoked the inherent powers of this Court under Section 482 of Cr.P.C. - HELD THAT:- In the present case in hand, the petitioner has complained of harassment by the respondent based on a complaint and seek for this Court's intervention by way of a direction. The term 'harassment' by itself has a very wide meaning and hence, what could be harassment to the petitioner may not be the same to the investigating officer. While summoning any person named in the complaint or any witness to the incident complained of, the investigating officer shall summon such person through a written summon under Section 160 Cr.P.C., specifying a p....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 598
Habeas Corpus Petition - Validity of Detention Order - Smuggling - Gold - It is the contention of the respondents that earlier, the petitioner was arrested for having smuggled 1200 grams of gold - HELD THAT:- The orders of remand passed against the petitioner were not furnished to her depriving her fundamental right to submit an effective representation to the detaining authority for revocation of the detention order. Therefore, the petitioner is entitled to succeed on this ground and consequently, the impugned order of detention is liable to be quashed. The Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed.
- 2020 (6) TMI 560
Seizure of Gold - provisional release of goods - Section 110(2) of the Customs Act 1962 - HELD THAT:- The facts with regard to seizure of the gold the extension of time and its communication to the petitioner much less issuance of the ordinance are not in dispute. Sub-Section 2 of Section 110 of the Customs Act and proviso added later on enables the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs to give further period of six months by informing the person after recording the reasons which, in the instant case has already been done. However, the extension would not come into play in case the goods are provisionally released under Section 110(a). The equity can be struck by issuing directions to the respondent for deciding the request submitted vide Ext.P5 for provisional release of the goods in accordance with law after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (6) TMI 500
Exemption for Customs duty - import of three textile machines - inclusion of new items in the exemption - Amendment is retrospective or prospective - Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 - HELD THAT:- The question whether the relevant customs notification was retrospective in nature becomes academic. However, since the Director General of Foreign Trade had declined to grant relief to the company holding that the said notification had no retrospective effect and the learned Single Judge, on the other hand, allowed the writ petition taking a contrary view, the said issue is also addressed - aforesaid notification dated November 04, 1999, was introduced for further amending the notification No. 29/97-cus dated the 1st April, 1997 and giving a retrospective effect would mean that the same would relate back to ....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 460
Cancellation of summons - Jurisdiction - Import of jewellery in violation of Baggage Rules - High Profile case - Connivance of the Police officers - prohibition on customs authority for initiating enquiry under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 - offence under Section 133 of Customs Act - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner of Customs on 26th March, 2019 prima facie formed his opinion to enquire and seek presence of the petitioners in connection to an incident that occurred on the night of 15/16th March, 2019 and sought aid in enquiry directing Joint/Additional Commissioner of Customs, AIU, NSCBI, Airport, Kolkata to issue summons to the petitioners and the petitioners were directed to appear before Additional Commissioner of Customs (Airport Administration) on 8th April, 2019 for giving evidence and/or produces documents or things in relatio....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 363
Application of the respondent for obtaining licence under CBLR - Conditions to be fulfilled by the applicants as per clause 5(f) of CBLR - HELD THAT:- The words 'or' in clause (ii) of clause 5(f) of the CBLR, makes the two parts mutually exclusive and independent - Therefore, the words 'possess a professional degree such as Masters', without any specification of the subject in the said clause, could encompass, in our opinion, the Masters Degree in Science also, which the petitioner did admittedly satisfy. The words 'such as' before the words 'Masters' cannot obliterate the words 'or' and the respondent cannot be compelled to have Masters Degree in Accounting/Finance/Management. Apparently even a partner or director of a partnership firm or a company having sufficient experience, can apply provided, ....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 234
Detention of goods - overvaluation - case of petitioner is that role of the petitioner is only as a Customs Broker and have no role in declaring the value of the goods - HELD THAT:- This Court cannot while exercising power under Article 226 exercise judicial review in examining the veracity and genuinity of impugned documents Exts.P9 and P11 as they are subject to appeal in view of the provisions of the Regulations 2013, now amended 2018 and Section 129 of the Customs Act. Though Sri.Sreelal Warrier, informs this court that he would be verifying regarding the working of the Tribunal but, there is no closure of the system in preventing the affected party in filing the appeal particularly when the limitation is not still expired. The petitioner is relegated to avail the remedy of appeal if so advised and the appeal is directed to be disposed of by the Tribunal as expeditiously as possible within a period of two months as provided under the regulation. Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (6) TMI 233
Grant of Bail - Smuggling - Gold - It has been pleaded in the affidavit filed in support of the bail application that the applicant is an innocent person and has been falsely implicated in the present case - HELD THAT:- The Court is of the opinion that the applicant is entitled to be admitted to bail. Applicant, namely, Sanjay Kumar Kushwaha is admitted to bail and considering the special circumstances of the lock-down prevailing in the district concerned presently and in the light of the directions of this Court in P.I.L. No. 564 of 2020 dated 06.04.2020, let the applicant Sanjay Kumar Kushwaha be enlarged on bail in the aforesaid case crime number on his furnishing a personal bond only to the satisfaction of the jail authorities, where the applicant is languishing. Bail Application allowed.
- 2020 (6) TMI 212
Advance Authorization Scheme - execution of Bank Guarantee - deemed exports - HELD THAT:- The recovery proceedings by the respondents shall be kept in abeyance for a period of four weeks from today. The petitioner is granted four weeks time to approach the jurisdictional competent authorities before the State of Karnataka for appropriate remedy. It is made clear that if the petitioner fails to avail this opportunity within a time frame stipulated by this Court, it is open to the respondents to take appropriate action in the manner known to law. Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (6) TMI 180
100% EOU - Maintainability of revision petition - Conspiracy - Export of substandard capital goods/machinery to Singapore by falsely declaring the item exported as Capital Goods - allegations in the charge sheet are specific and there were sufficient evidence with regard to the criminal conspiracy between the petitioners/accused and the other accused for misappropriation of foreign funds and there are sufficient oral and documentary evidence to prove the offences - HELD THAT:- The Income Tax Department after analyzing all official transaction and on perusal of the document, books of account found that the petitioner did not import the machinery and did not make any claim for depreciation. Likewise the CESTAT has held M/s.Sundaram Finance Limited (SFL) and M/s.ICICI Bank (erstwhile Bank of Madura) are its importers, owners of the goods and....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 147
Classification of imported goods - yeast extract, Egyptian Basil, Soy Sauce Powder etc. - Whether the customs authorities are empowered to differ the classification as sought by the petitioner for the purpose of charging of the higher duty? HELD THAT:- On a plain and simple reading of the prayer as well as the prayer for stay of the presence/summoning of the Managing Director by the officers of the DRI cannot be conjoined in one writ petition. Even otherwise, the provisions of Section 108 only deals with recording of the statements, nothing beyond. Any apprehension can be invoked when the entire action initiated in law except that DRI officers of New Delhi do not have the territorial jurisdiction. Section 110(A) leaves no manner of doubt that the petitioner is not prepared to move an application for provisional release of the goods being ....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 140
Advance Authorization Scheme - export of items namely “Gold Medallions and Coins" or "Any Jewellery manufactured by fully mechanized process” - HELD THAT:- It appears that by impugned public notice No.35/2015-2020 dated 26th September, 2019 (Annexure P-1 to the memo of writ petition) issued by respondent No.1 whereby the Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), in exercise of the powers under paragraph 1.03 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020, disallowed issuance of Advance Authorisations where item of export is “Gold Medallions and Coins” or any jewellery/articles manufactured by fully mechanized process, has in effect amended the Foreign Trade Policy, in excess of power and jurisdiction of the DGFT. The powers exercised by DGFT while issuing the aforesaid public notice dated 26th September, 2019 whic....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 96
Deemed export - supply to SEZ unit - recovery of customs duty - Forbearing the 2nd respondent from making payment against the bank Guarantee - the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsels appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that the remedy available to the petitioner as against recovery proceedings is only before the competent jurisdictional authorities of Karnataka State and hence, the petitioner may be given reasonable time to approach the authorities concerned for appropriate remedy - HELD THAT:- The petition is disposed off with the direction that the recovery proceedings by the respondents shall be kept in abeyance for a period of four weeks from today. The petitioner is granted four weeks time to approach the jurisdictional competent authorities before the State of Karnataka for appropri....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 72
Jurisdiction - appeal to High Court - appropriate forum - Smuggling - Provisional release of gold jewellery - section 130 of Customs Act - HELD THAT:- An appeal lies, to this Court, under Section 130 of the Act, only on “substantial questions of law”. Dealing with an identical expression, as it occurs in Section 130A of the Act, which provides for reference, to the High Court, against orders of the learned Tribunal, and was the provision in existence, prior to 1st July, 2003, when the provision of appeal was introduced. In M/S. KUSHAL FERTILISERS (P) LTD. VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS AND CENTRAL EXCISE, MEERUT [2009 (5) TMI 13 - SUPREME COURT], the Supreme Court held that a finding, by the learned Tribunal, to the effect that, as there was no wilful misstatement or suppression of fact, the extended period for issuance of....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 40
Duty Free Credit Entitlement’ Scheme - validity of Notification no.28 dated 28.01.2004 - third party exports - status holder - petitioner filed application before the respondent, contending therein that out of the total exports of ₹ 1070.35 crores made by the petitioner between 01.04.2003 to 31.03.2004, exports of ₹ 355.69 crores had become ineligible in view of the exclusion set out in Notification dated 28.01.2004, leaving the eligible exports at ₹ 714.66 crores entitled for the benefit of the DFCE Scheme - respondent has rejected the application of the petitioner relying upon the judgment of the Supreme Court and observing that in terms thereof, the petitioner is not eligible to any benefit under DFCE Scheme as claimed. HELD THAT:- The Supreme Court in its judgment dated 27.10.2015 [2015 (11) TMI 80 - SUPREME CO....... + More
- 2020 (6) TMI 39
Jurisdiction - proper officer to adjudicate the case - Adjudication of confiscation and penalties - Smuggling - contraband item - Gold - Section 122 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- A plain reading of Section 122 would indicate that in every case under the said Chapter i.e., Chapter XIV under which anything is liable to be confiscated or any person is liable to be imposed with the penalty has to be adjudicated under Clause (a) of Section 122 of the Act by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs or a Joint Commissioner of Customs without limit. Under Clause (b) the penalty has to be adjudicated by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs or Deputy Commissioner of Customs where the value of goods came to be confiscated does not exceed ₹ 5 Lakhs and under Clause (c) same shall be adjudicated by a Gazetted Of....... + More