Advanced Search Options
Customs - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 8727 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.
- 2021 (8) TMI 38 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Permission for withdrawal of petition - Seeking directions to the Respondents for release of the Bank Guarantees - HELD THAT:- Liberty as aforesaid is granted. As and when such representation is preferred by the Petitioner, the same shall be decided by the Authority concerned in accordance with law, rules and regulations and Government policies applicable to the facts of the case, as early as possible and practicable. Writ petition is hereby disposed of as withdrawn with liberty as aforesaid.
- 2021 (7) TMI 1157 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Provisional release of imported goods - Return of bank guarantees - Areca nuts - proper officer in terms of Section 45(1) of Customs Act - country of origin certificate - HELD THAT:- Section 45 of the Act provides all goods imported into India and unloaded in customs area shall remain in the custody of such person as may be approved by the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs unless they are cleared for home consumption or are warehoused or are transhipped in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VIII of the Act. On the other hand, Section 100 deals with seizure of goods on a reasonable belief that the goods are liable to confiscation under the Act. In the present case the customs authorities had not seized the goods on such reasonable belief that they are liable to confiscation. On the other hand, the goods ha....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1155 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Smuggling - Foreign Origin (FO) Gold - recovery of the gold from the secret cavity beneath the driver’s seat of that vehicle - recording of statements u/s 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The case diary which has been produced in a sealed cover, has been perused. Undisputedly, the investigation is pending and Challan has not been filed so far. Having regard to the nature of material which has come on record, the release of the applicants during the pendency of the investigation would not be proper as the prosecution is in the process of collecting further evidence against them - application dismissed.
- 2021 (7) TMI 1153 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Validity of Notifications dated 04.05.2007, 04.05.2007 and 05.09.2006 - issuance of SCN by proper officer - incompetent authority of Jurisdictional Officer or not - HELD THAT:- The proper officer is defined as “in relation to any functions to be performed under the Act, means the Officer of Customs, who is assigned those functions by the Board or the Commissioner of Customs. Thus, the proper officer is defined so as to include the officer of customs, who is assigned those functions by the Board. In the present case, by invoking the powers under Section 4(1) of the Act, the Board conferred powers to the Commissioner of Central Excise, Goa and authorises him to exercise the powers and discharge the duties conferred or imposed on the Commissioner of Customs, Port Imports, Chennai for the purposes of adjudicating the matters relating to....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1152 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Seeking interest on delayed disbursal of refund - circular bearing No.276/186/2015-CX.8A dated 01.06.2015 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, there is no interim order in the appeal filed by the respondents and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for the interest as ordered by this Court - But, in spite of the orders passed by this Court and in spite of the circular bearing No.276/186/2015-CX.8A dated 01.06.2015, the first respondent had refused to pay interest to the petitioner and had driven the petitioner to come before this Court once again for his entitlement. The earlier order is very clear as to the interest. The respondents are directed to pay the interest due to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
- 2021 (7) TMI 1150 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Seeking release and return of detained containers - entitlement of compensation towards the container idling charges - in spite of petitioner's request, the respondents have not taken any steps to release the containers as specified - HELD THAT:- This Court is of the considered opinion that imports and exports are to be done by following the procedures contemplated and by complying with the mandatory requirements. The relief as such sought for in the present writ petition to direct the respondents to forthwith release and return the containers, itself is absurd. Such a relief requires adjudication in view of the fact that there are statutory requirements and compliance of the terms and conditions with the Customs Cargo Service Provider and other aspects of the matter. Without adjudicating all those factors, the High Court cannot issue....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1148 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Grant of default bail - Smuggling - contraband gold bars - discharge of burden of proof u/s 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 - offence punishable under Section 135(1)(b)(i)(A) and Section 135(1)(b)(i)(C) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The petitioners in the instant case have been granted default bail as per the proviso (a) (ii) of Section 167(2), CrPC as the investigating authority could not submit the final complaint within the prescribed period of 60 (sixty) days considering the fact that the offences under Section 135(1)(b)(i)(A) and Section 135(1)(b)(i)(C) of the Customs Act, 1962 are punishable with rigorous imprisonment which may extend upto a period of 7 (seven) years and fine. As the provisions of Chapter XXXIII (Provisions as to Bail and Bonds) are applicable also in respect of the default bail granted as per the proviso (a)(....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1144 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Maintainability of appeal - Form No. CA-1 under Rule 3(1) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 read with Section 128 of the Customs Act - Confiscation - Foreign Currency - HELD THAT:- The form prescribed for filing an appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is CA-1, though Column No. 4 seeks for providing the date of communication of the order appealed against, the same cannot be controlled the manner in which an appeal is to be preferred. If there are separate dates on which different appellants had received the orders, those different dates can be provided in the column. Further, when right of appeal is a vested right and a creation by the statute, the form prescribed or any column in the form so prescribed cannot control the right to file an appeal. Appeal to the Commissioner of Appeals cannot be determined either by the rules governi....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1113 - ANDHRA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Seeking return of bank guarantees furnished - import of Areca Nuts - no SCN issued within six months from the date of seizure of the goods - HELD THAT:- The goods had been seized in exercise of powers under Sub-section (1) of Section 110 of the Act. On the other hand, it appears that they had been kept in the custody of the proper officer, pending verification of the country of origin certificate. It appears that there was no seizure of goods, as envisaged under Section 110(1) of the Act. On the other hand, the instant case relates to clearance of imported goods as governed by Chapter VII of the Act. Sections 45, 48 and 49 deal with the manner in which the imported goods ought to be kept pending their clearance upon submission of bills of entry under Section 46 thereof. In the present case the customs authorities had not seized the goods ....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1108 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Finalization of assessment order - grievance of respondent/writ petitioner has been that the appellants are not giving effect to the decision of the Appellate Tribunal in M/S. GLOBAL INDUSTRIES VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS COCHIN [2011 (2) TMI 742 - CESTAT BANGALORE] - HELD THAT:- The appellants inform this Court that the appeal filed against Ext.P9 order is pending before the Supreme Court. It is not in dispute that the appeal is pending and the appellants do not have an order of stay in their favour against the implementation of the decision of the CESTAT. The undisputed fact situation is that the Supreme Court has not stayed the operation or implementation of decision of the CESTAT. The appellant is under obligation to implement the order of the CESTAT and ought to have complied with the writ of mandamus issued by this Court - Appeal dismissed.
- 2021 (7) TMI 1104 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Deemed Export scheme - supplies effected by the petitioner to M/s. Reliance Petroleum Limited for their project at Gujarat - new refinery project or not - applicability of exemption granted under the Customs Notification No. 36 of 1997, dated 11-4-1977 - HELD THAT:- As seen from the impugned orders, without any basis, just based on the Department of Economic Affairs Clarification, the respondents have rejected the petitioner’s claim for Customs duty exemption under the Notification dated 13-6-1997 issued by the Ministry of Finance (Department of Revenue). Hence, this Court is of the considered view that the impugned orders, namely, the order in appeal passed by the second respondent dated 5-6-2015 as well as the order of the Original authority dated 25-5-2010 passed by the fourth respondent have been passed by total non-application ....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1066 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Permission to mutilate the imported goods - 459 packages weighing 55.740 MT of mixed wet strength scrap paper (silicon paper and coated) - seeking allowance of clearance of the goods under the exemption claimed for waste paper - HELD THAT:- The Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industry, Department of Commerce, Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT), in exercise of powers conferred under Section 3 of the Foreign Trade (D&R) Act, 1992 r/w Paragraph 1.02 and 2.01 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2015-2020, as amended from time to time, introduced a policy condition for items under EXIM Code 4810 of Chapter 48 of ITC (HS), 2017, Schedule-I (Import Policy) - This was vide a Notification, dated 31.01.2020 in Notification No. 45/2015-2020. The policy condition for items under EXIM Code 4810 was free, but import of stock lot was....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1051 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Scope of the contract - Change in the price of Gold Bars due to change in rates of Customs duty - revision in the price of Gold bars imported, which was still in stock and is not sold till date - appellant submitted that the Corporation could not have insisted for revised payment of customs duty at the enhanced rate as the same has already paid along with the customs duty - whether the Corporation like any other importer of gold has a right to sell the gold after a particular date at the rate fixed by it? - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the appellant had not made any payment to the respondent- Corporation and the appellant has not sustained any loss from the transaction in question. The issue decided in the case of BANGALORE BULLION TRADERS, BANGALORE VS. MINERALS AND METAL TRADING CORPORATION LIMITED, BANGALORE [2003 (2) TMI 546 - KARNATAKA HI....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1049 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Claim due to floods during December 2015 - Both parties made submission that Customs Duty has already been settled and therefore, the order impugned is set aside - HELD THAT:- In view of the fact that the 4th respondent remitted the Customs Duty, there is no further adjudication needs to be entertained with reference to the grounds raised in the present writ petition. The writ petition stands disposed of.
- 2021 (7) TMI 1034 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Seeking registration of scrips - benefit under Merchandise Exports from India Scheme (MEIS) - invocation of procedure for cancellation of scrips as set out u/s 9(4) of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 - HELD THAT:- Upon a comparison of the details contained in the bills of export of goods under which the petitioner has claimed duty drawback, with the bills of the parties to the transaction, it is found that the numbers and date tally. It is thus clear that the export documents have been executed by the petitioner. The petitioner also confirms that the FTWZ has neither claimed nor been granted any benefit under MEIS Scheme in regard to the instant transactions. If at all such claims had been advanced, they would have been barred under the provisions of 3.06 (vii) of the policy note. The procedure set out for issuance of....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1030 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Refund of excess amount of tax - import of RBD Palm Oil - enhancement of rate of customs duty vide N/N. 29/2018-Cus., dated 1-3-2018 - validity of the notification - date on which notification came into effect, and the effect of notification on impugned bills of entry - HELD THAT:- The Notification No. 29/2018-Customs, dated 1-3-2018 came into effect from the date of its publication in the official website of the respondent as per the Office Memorandum - there is no dispute that the Notification was uploaded in the official website on 6-3-2018. Therefore, the rate of duty, as was in existence prior to the said publication of the Notification No. 29/2018-Customs, dated 1-3-2018 in Notification No. 50/2017-Customs, dated 30-6-2017, was applicable for assessment of the Bill of Entry No. 5409602, dated 1-3-2018. The respondents will have to p....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 1028 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Grant of anticipatory bail - Smuggling - Gold - offence under Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act - bailable offence - Power of Customs Officer to arrest a person - HELD THAT:- The applicant apprehends that he may be arraigned as an accused in OR No. 7/2020 of Ernakulam Customs in which his son-in-law has been implicated as an accused. Going by the allegations, he apprehends that he may be implicated for an offence punishable under Section 135(1)(b), which is only a bailable offence coming within the purview of Section 104(7) of the Customs Act. In case that argument is accepted, application for anticipatory bail under Section 438 of Cr. P.C. is not sustainable. In UNION OF INDIA VERSUS PADAM NARAIN AGGARWAL ETC. [2008 (10) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT] it was held that the power to arrest a person by a Customs Officer is statutory and cannot b....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 990 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Refund of Container Detention Charges - violation of the Detention / Demurrage Waiver Certificate dated 27.10.2017 - unflavoured supari - despite the Detention Certificate, no action has been taken by the 4th respondent / Service Provider - HELD THAT:- Once the imported goods are confiscated by the Customs authorities, they became in possession of the goods and therefore, the Service Provider shall not levy any charges for the said confiscated goods. If at all any deposits are collected in this regard, the said deposits are to be refunded - In the present case, even the goods are not released and the Service Provider is claiming charges, which is in violation of the Detention certificate issued by the Customs authorities. Thus, the petitioner is constrained to move the writ petition. In the present case, admittedly, the goods are being ma....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 969 - TRIPURA HIGH COURT
Review petition - Rectification of error in the Judgement of the Court - Verification in respect of the Bill of Entry - Verification of country of origin - respondent filed their objection against the review petition and stated that there is nothing to be reviewed except a bonafide mistake that has crept in the order dated 26.04.2021 which is merely a bonafide typographical error - Rule 6(1)(b) of the CAROTAR, 2020 - HELD THAT:- Since the errors in the judgment dated 26.04.2021 are apparent on the face of records. The line “the petitioner may take release of the imported goods covered by Bill of Entry No.659,629/IMP/AGT-LCS/2020-21 dated 29.09.2020 without prejudice to his claim” be deleted and substituted by the following sentence : “The petitioner may take release of the imported goods covered by Bills of Entry No.9592....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 916 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT
Seeking immediate release the goods without charging any demurrage or rent charges - auction of seized goods ordered, despite deposit of duty and detention certificate for waiver of rent/demurrage charges - HELD THAT:- The matter requires consideration. Issue notice to respondent no. 3, returnable with five weeks. Steps may be taken within a week. All the respondent may file their counter affidavits within four weeks. Rejoinder affidavit may be filed within one week thereafter. List thereafter.