Advanced Search Options
Customs - High Court - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 8229 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 (10) TMI 234 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Direction to the Respondent to allow re-export of the goods - Clove - violation of FSSAI Act - HELD THAT:- The order passed by the Commissioner is not what the High Court had intended when it had passed the order dated 03.07.2020. Such disposal of representation is no disposal. This Court had directed the Commissioner to take a decision one way or the other on the representation of the Petitioner to grant permission for re-export of the goods in question in accordance with law. Instead of taking the necessary decision, Commissioner has deferred taking such decision for an indefinite period. The Commissioner is directed to pass a fresh or consequential order in terms of our earlier order dated 03.07.2020 on the prayer of the Petitioner for re-export of the goods in question by taking necessary decision in accordance with law keeping in min....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 233 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Release of imported watch of petitioner - Direction to the respondents to give effect to the order-in-appeal dated 29.11.2019 and to allow clearance of the imported watch covered by bill of entry No.9494939 dated 02.01.2019 on payment of duty on the declared value - whether respondent No.3 is justified in not releasing the imported watch of the petitioner in terms of the order-in-appeal dated 29.11.2019 and insisting on provisional release of the same subject to the conditions mentioned in the letter dated 04.02.2020? HELD THAT:- On going through the order-in-appeal we do not find presence of any departmental representative in the appeal hearing though appellants i.e., the petitioners were duly represented by learned counsel who had also filed written submission. It does not appear that any objection or written submission were filed on be....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 185 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Release of detenue - Smuggling - electronic goods - whether delay in passing the detention order would vitiate the detention order? - HELD THAT:- There is nothing on record to indicate the steps taken or the efforts made by the executing authority to execute the order of detention between the period from March 3, 2020 to June 8, 2020. The executing authority has only stated that they visited the address mentioned in the detention order on February 25, 2020 and March 3, 2020 when they found the premises have been demolished for construction of SRA project. Further, they stated that they visited the mobile shop of the petitioner’s brother on these two dates viz. February 25, 2020 and March 3, 2020 when they found the shop to be closed. Except for this no material is produced on the basis of which it can be said that the police authori....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 184 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Vacation of Interim Order - levy of redemption fine and penalty - import of consignments of multifunctional printers/devices (MFD) - whether, the Tribunal exercised its discretion in accordance with law, in light of the violations complained by the Department? - HELD THAT:- We have already referred to the contentions of the learned counsel for appellant - Department in detail. He drew our attention to two principal violations in the matter of import of the goods in question. The first being no compulsory registration under the Government Order dated 07/09/2012 and having regard to Sl.Nos.7 and 8 of the Schedule thereto, made under the provisions of BIS Act, 1986. In that regard, learned counsel for appellant also drew our attention to Notification of the Ministry of Communications and Information, Technical Department of Information Techn....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 128 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Violation of import conditions - benefit of Concessional rate of duty denied - stand of the respondents is that the imported goods should have been put only for own use consumption and should not have been sold - SI.No.292(A) of General Exemption N/N. 50/2017-Customs, dated 30.06.2017 - HELD THAT:- Since the petitioner has now obtained End Use certificate from the jurisdictional authority, in the interest of justice, he deserves to be granted one more opportunity. In this view of the matter, the order impugned in this writ petition is quashed - The matter is remitted to the file of the first respondent. The first respondent will issue a fresh hearing notice to the petitioner. On the said date, the petitioner should place all the materials such as End Use certificates before the first respondent for his consideration. Petition allowed by way of remand.
- 2020 (10) TMI 74 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Attachment of Bank Accounts - case of petitioner is that attachment of the bank account has continued beyond the statutorily permissible period and therefore should be interfered with - HELD THAT:- There are no good reason to sustain the communication dated 19th April, 2018 as more than two years have elapsed since the bank account was frozen - sub-section (5) of Section 110 speaks of provisional attachment. Dictionary meaning of provisional is ‘arranged or existing for the present, possibly to be changed later’; Black’s Law Dictionary, Eight Edition, has defined it as ‘temporary or conditional’. Therefore, the statute has provided a definite time line beyond which the attachment becomes bad in law. The impugned communication dated 19th April, 2018 is hereby set aside and quashed - Respondents are directed to allow petitioner to operate its bank account with IndusInd Bank - Petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
- 2020 (10) TMI 73 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Release of detained and seized goods - kerosene / diesel - prohibited goods or not - large scale mis-declaration of goods as mineral hydrocarbon oil with a view to smuggle in kerosene / diesel by some importers - waiver of demurrage charges incurred till release of the goods - HELD THAT:- The goods in question have been seized under section 110 of the Customs Act. From a reading of sub-section (1) of section 110, it is evident that seizure of a good is not an end in itself. It is a means to an end. The end is confiscation, if justified and warranted. From the pleadings it is seen that the goods were put on hold and thereafter seized in the first week of January, 2020. Considering that the goods in question, be it mineral hydrocarbon oil as claimed by the petitioner or kerosene / high speed diesel as claimed by the respondents, are highly ....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 1121 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Seeking implementation of the order of CESTAT - Right of Revenue to file an appeal in the HC against the order of tribunal - It is the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the mere fact that the respondent is contemplating the filing of an appeal against Ext.P7 order cannot be a reason for not issuing directions for the implementation of Ext.P7 order - HELD THAT:- It is trite that the appellate remedy being a statutorily conferred one, no litigant can be deprived of the statutorily permitted period for availing the appellate remedy, through coercive steps that effectively curtail the said period. Just as an assessee, who suffers an order of assessment cannot be compelled to fast track an appellate remedy through coercive steps initiated against him before the expiry of the statutory period available to him for approac....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 1120 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Customs Brokers Licensing - Validity of N/N. 41/2018-Cus. (N.T.), dated 14-5-2018 - Examination with respect to screening and selection of candidates from "H" Card to "G" Card - permission to hold "G" Card license - HELD THAT:- It is clear that the respondent authorities have conducted the examination not with a view to upgrade the licence holder, but with a view to reject the upgradation from "H" to "G". The object of any examination is to ensure that the qualified candidate is promoted to the next post. If an examination is conducted with the object to reject candidates, then the examination itself has to be struck down. In this case, the respondent had no right to conduct any oral examination. It is not provided in the Rules. The Rules stipulate that written examination alone must be co....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 1039 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Import of Vehicle or not - whether bringing of a vehicle by the petitioner under Ext.P1 can be termed as import of a vehicle and even if it cannot be strictly termed as import, is the petitioner eligible to import the said vehicle paying customs duty and availing depreciation benefits in respect of the vehicle? - HELD THAT:- The Customs Act provides for an appellate mechanism to decide such issues. The petitioner has not availed the same. Therefore, it is only just and proper that the petitioner is relegated to appellate remedy available under the Customs Act at the first instance. The writ petition is disposed of permitting the petitioner to prefer an appeal against Ext.P4 before the Commissioner (Appeals) under Section 128 of the Customs Act, within a period of two weeks, along with a petition to condone the delay - Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (9) TMI 1006 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Interpretation of the Exemption Circular - Circular No.128/95-Cus dated 14.12.1995 - Demand for Cost Recovery Charges [CRC] towards cost of the Customs staff posted at the station - respondents contend that the petitioner has not met the performance benchmark stipulated in the exemption Circular - whether Petitioner fulfils the eligibility criteria for availing the benefit of exemption or waiver of CRC in terms of the Circulars issued by the Revenue? HELD THAT:- The evaluation of the performance of the Petitioner is based primarily upon two criteria: firstly, on the number of containers/TEUs handled by CFS as given in Clause 1 (ii), and secondly, on the number of BoE/SB processed by CFS as given in Clause 1 (iii).The simple question that hinges before us is whether these criteria at Clauses 1 (ii) and 1 (iii) were to be satisfied simultan....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 953 - MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Grant of Bail - smuggling of Gold - breach of Section 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- In the present case as well, learned counsel for the nonapplicant has infact admitted that investigation as against the applicant has already been completed and only sanction to prosecute the applicant is remained to be obtained and it is only then the charge-sheet would be filed - It is true that no gold has been seized from the possession of the applicant, as per own admissions made by the counsel for the non-applicant, as investigation in respect of applicant has already been completed hence, in view of such situation, the bail application is liable to be allowed. Without commenting upon the merits of the case, this bail application is allowed and it is directed that applicant - Rajesh Neema shall be released on bail subject to his fu....... + More
- 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.