Advanced Search Options
Customs - Supreme Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1148 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 (9) TMI 1052 - SUPREME COURT
Classification of goods - cellular telephones - classified under Tariff Heading 8525-20-17 of the Customs Tariff Act or not? - telephone LSP 340 imported would be entitled to the benefit of the exemption granted by Notification No. 21/2002- Cus dated 1.3.2002? - HELD THAT:- The decision of this Court in the case of Tata Teleservices Limited [2005 (12) TMI 96 - SUPREME COURT], it cannot be said that the learned Tribunal has committed any error in allowing the appeals preferred by the respondents and holding that the respondents shall be entitled to the benefit of exemption in terms of serial no. 264 of the table to the Notification No.6/2002-CE dated 1.3.2002, Notification No. 21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002 as per serial no. 320 of the Table thereto and Notification No. 21/2005-Cus dated 1.3.2005. All these appeals deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.
- 2021 (9) TMI 1012 - SUPREME COURT
Levy of anti - dumping duty - Styrene Butadiene Rubber imported from Korea - classified under the heading 4002 of the First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or otherwise? - HELD THAT:- In the present proceedings, there is no dispute about the position that the product under consideration of the Designated Authority was SBR of 1500, 1700 and 1900 series falling under CTH 4002.19 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 but not goods covered by the CTH 40021100 - while SBR of the 1900 series is a dry polymer, the goods imported by the respondent were in a liquid form and hence, according to the respondent, fall for classification under CTH 40021100 as Latex. In this context, reliance was sought to be placed on the Vanderbiit Rubber Handbook and an opinion obtained from the University of Mumbai. On the above premises, it was submitted that the....... + More
- 2021 (9) TMI 729 - SUPREME COURT
Classification of imported goods - Parts of seats of motor vehicle (parts of part) - whether classifiable under heading 8708 of CTH as parts and accessories motor vehicle, or are parts of motor vehicle seats and classifiable under 9401 9000? - HELD THAT:- It was held in the case of SHIROKI AUTO COMPONENTS INDIA PVT LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE & ST, AHMEDABAD [2020 (7) TMI 706 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] that the captioned goods i.e. Child Parts imported by the appellant is correctly classifiable under CETH 9401 90 00 of Customs Tariff Act. There are no reason to interfere with the said order - appeal dismissed.
- 2021 (9) TMI 316 - SUPREME COURT
Undervaluation of goods - Jurisdiction - proper officer to issue SCN - Additional Director General (ADG), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) issued the notice - HELD THAT:- In view of decision in CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [2021 (3) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT] these appeals must fail as the show cause notice(s) in the present cases was also issued by Additional Director General (ADG), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), who is not a proper officer within the meaning of Section 28(4) read with Section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962. Appeal dismissed.
- 2021 (7) TMI 1047 - SUPREME COURT
Grant of fresh CHA License - HELD THAT:- This appeal is disposed off with liberty to the appellant to make a fresh application for grant of CHA License, which be considered by the Competent Authority in accordance with law. In the event, the application for grant of fresh CHA License is rejected, it will be open to the appellant to take recourse to statutory remedy of appeal provided for in Regulation 9(4) of the Custom House Agent Licensing Regulations, 2004.
- 2021 (7) TMI 474 - SUPREME COURT
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - Revenue appeal - the delay was unexplained - HELD THAT:- We have repeatedly discouraged State Governments and public authorities in adopting an approach that they can walk in to the Supreme Court as and when they please ignoring the period of limitation prescribed by the Statutes, as if the Limitation statute does not apply to them. The objective is to complete a mere formality and save the skin of the officers who may be in default in following the due process or may have done it deliberately. We have deprecated such practice and process and we do so again. We refuse to grant such certificates and if the Government/public authorities suffer losses, it is time when concerned officers responsible for the same, bear the consequences - The irony, emphasized by us repeatedly, is that no action is ever t....... + More
- 2021 (6) TMI 778 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of notification for restricting the import of certain beans, peas and pulses - different interim orders were passed by the different High Courts and the importers effected various imports on the strength of such interim orders. - Notifications issued by the Central Government under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 - Absolute confiscation or redemption to be allowed on payment of redemption fine - HELD THAT:- it is at once clear that when the matter was left for decision by the Commissioner (Appeals), there was neither any occasion nor any justification for the High Court to pass the order for release of the goods for the simple reason that any order for release of goods was to render the material part of the matter a fait accompli. This, simply, could not have been done. Putting it differently, a little pa....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 1214 - SUPREME COURT
Covid-19 Regulatory Package notified by the RBI vide notification dated 27.03.2020 - case of petitioner is that the Regulatory Package will not in any manner salvage the MSMEs and help them recover from financial losses that have been caused due to the unforeseen circumstances - complete waiver of interest or interest on interest during the moratorium period - sector-wise relief packages sought to be offered by the Union of India and/or the RBI and/or the Lenders - seeking moratorium to be permitted for all accounts instead of being at the discretion of the Lenders - seeking extension of moratorium beyond 31.08.2020 - seeking extension of last date for invocation of the resolution mechanism, namely, 31.12.2020 provided under the 6.8.2020 circular. HELD THAT:- In RK. GARG VERSUS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS [1981 (11) TMI 57 - SUPREME COURT],....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT
Benefit of exemption - Import of Camera - Extended period of limitation - Jurisdiction of DRI to issue Show Cause Notice (SCN) - Proper Officer - Validity of proceeding initiated for Recovery of duty not paid - clearance of the cameras on the basis that they were exempted from levy of basic Customs duty under Notification No.15/2012 - Section 28(4) of the Customs Act, 1962 - whether the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence had authority in law to issue a show cause notice under Section 28(4) of the Act for recovery of duties allegedly not levied or paid when the goods have been cleared for import by a Deputy Commissioner of Customs who decided that the goods are exempted. HELD THAT:- It is necessary that the answer must flow from the power conferred by the statute i.e. under Section 28(4) of the Act. This Section empowers the recovery of d....... + More
- 2021 (1) TMI 379 - SUPREME COURT
Exotic species - Constitutional Validity of Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 - vires of Article 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India - issuance of suitable Circular/Instructions to enable the citizens in domestic possession of exotic species to make declaration under the voluntary disclosure scheme without any fear of actions under the customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- There are no ground to interfere with the impugned order passed by the High Court - SLP dismissed.
- 2020 (11) TMI 199 - SUPREME COURT
Classification of goods - machinery used for making footwear and footwear sole/strap/heel - whether classified as “M/C for use in leather footwear industries injection moulding of PVC/TPR/EVA soles with STD ACC Model global 138/150”, therefore, not covered under Heading 8453 of the Customs Tariff or not? - applicability of notification dated 23rd March, 2010 - HELD THAT:- The argument of the appellant that the entry 8453 refers independently to ‘Machinery for making or repairing footwear’, cannot be countenanced. For, that expression will have to be understood in the context of the heading dealing with ‘Machinery for preparing, tanning or working hides, skins or leather’. The fact that in some other case benefit has been given to the importer on the basis of clamping force being less than 40 tons, also,....... + More
- 2020 (11) TMI 55 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of conviction made - conviction based solely on the purported confessional statement recorded under Section 67 of the NDPS Act - evidentiary value present or not - punishment and sentences under NDPS Act - powers of officers to “investigate” any offences. As per J. (R. F. Nariman) FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS AND THE NDPS ACT - HELD THAT:- The NDPS Act is to be construed in the backdrop of Article 20(3) and Article 21, Parliament being aware of the fundamental rights of the citizen and the judgments of this Court interpreting them, as a result of which a delicate balance is maintained between the power of the State to maintain law and order, and the fundamental rights chapter which protects the liberty of the individual. Several safeguards are thus contained in the NDPS Act, which is of an extremely drastic and draconian nature....... + More
- 2020 (10) TMI 1220 - SUPREME COURT
Review Petition - proceedings under Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by ARJUN BISHT - HELD THAT:- We request the High Court to take up the review petition in the meantime. In the event that the High Court considers it appropriate to take up and dispose of the main writ petition, it is entirely at liberty to do so. No coercive steps shall be taken against the petitioners till the next date of hearing - List the Special Leave Petition on 26 October 2020.
- 2020 (10) TMI 237 - SUPREME COURT
Provisional release of goods - Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 - High Court has directed provisional release, subject to the respondent furnishing a bank guarantee quantified at ₹ 10 crores, besides other incidental conditions - HELD THAT:- The quantum of the bank guarantee which has been directed to be furnished by the High Court, should be enhanced from ₹ 10 crores to ₹ 15 crores. Mr Salve has stated on instructions that he has no objection to an enhancement of the quantum of the bank guarantee. The order of the High Court is modified by directing that the quantum of the bank guarantee shall stand enhanced to ₹ 15 crores. The other conditions which have been imposed by the High Court shall continue to govern - SLP disposed off.
- 2020 (9) TMI 903 - SUPREME COURT
AS PER JUSTICE DR DHANANJAYA Y CHANDRACHUD Enhancement of Customs Duty - post-Pulwama Attack - Time and date from which enhanced duty comes into effect - issuance of notification under Section 8A of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 introducing a tariff entry by which all goods originating in or exported from the Islamic Republic of Pakistan were subjected to an enhanced customs duty of 200% - the contention of the Union government before the High Court was that under Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 the relevant date for determining the rate of duty is the date of the presentation of the bill of entry - submission was that the amended rate of duty under notification 5/2019 came into force on 16 February 2019; hence, the importers were liable to pay duty on the basis of the amended rate. The submission was that the customs authorities were e....... + More
- 2020 (9) TMI 857 - SUPREME COURT
Permission for withdrawal of appeal - Sabka Vishwas (Legacy Dispute Resolution) (SVLDR) Scheme, 2019 - HELD THAT:- The respondent cannot object to the appellant withdrawing any portion of the appeal, provided the appellant is not seeking any benefit from Court on account of the withdrawal. The appeal shall be treated as withdrawn only in respect of the dispute arising out of the excise component - Application allowed.
- 2020 (9) TMI 139 - SUPREME COURT
Seeking levy of Anti Dumping Duty - Designated Authority (DA) terminated the investigation, on the ground that appellant failed to prove any injury to Domestic industries - HC directed the DA to initiate investigation - Contempt proceedings initiated against the DA for failure to make necessary inquiry / investigation - HC has also issued directions for replacement of DA - normal Butanol or N-butyl alcohol - scope of the term "like article" - Rule 14(b) of the Rules of 1995. HELD THAT:- Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act and the procedure prescribed by the Rules of 1995, clearly disclose an intent that investigations should be completed within pre-determined time limits and the levy itself (which can be specific to foreign exporter or country - or combination of both-) cannot be more than five years - which may, after due revi....... + More
- 2020 (8) TMI 705 - SUPREME COURT
Power of Central Government to impose quantitative restrictions - Import of Peas - Powers u/s 3 versus u/s 9A of the FTDR Act - HELD THAT:- The impugned notifications were in the nature of ‘quantitative restrictions’ under Section 9A of the FTDR Act, which could be only imposed by the Central Government after conducting such enquiry, as is deemed fit, and on being satisfied that the “goods are imported into India in such quantities and under such conditions as to cause or threatens to cause serious injury to domestic industry.” Further, in exercise of power under sub-section (3) to Section 9A the Central Government has framed the Safeguard Measures (Quantitative Restrictions) Rules, 2012, that prescribe mandatory and detailed procedure for initiation, investigation, hearing to parties and adjudication by the Author....... + More
- 2020 (8) TMI 300 - SUPREME COURT
Levy of Ground Rent on Containers - steamer agents - scope of the term owner - distinction between storage of goods and demurrage charges - time limitation for de-stuffing the goods and return of the container - scope of the term "May" - can it be treated as "Shall" - interpretation of statute - sections 61 and 62 of the MPT Act - whether the liability to pay “ground rent” on containers unloaded at Cochin Port, but not cleared by the consignees/importers and refused to be destuffed by the Port, on the ground of inadequate storage space, can be imposed on the owners of the vessel/steamer agents beyond the period of 75 days, fixed by the Tariff Authority of Major Ports [TAMP], a statutory body constituted under Section 47-A of the Major Port Trusts Act, 1963? HELD THAT:- It is not possible to apply the doctri....... + More
- 2020 (7) TMI 755 - SUPREME COURT
Release of detained goods - applicability of ‘Electronics and IT Goods (Requirement for Compulsory Registration) Order (CRO), 2012’ - grievance of the petitioner firm is that the Customs authorities are refusing to release these two later consignments despite completion of required formalities - It was held that there is no reason as to why the later consignments of the petitioner firm, which have been withheld, should not be treated alike. HELD THAT:- Learned counsel for the respondent shall file his reply within two weeks from today. List after two weeks.