|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Supreme Court - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 1139 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 (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.
- 2020 (5) TMI 677 - SUPREME COURT
Authorization for important clearance of secondhand digital multifunction print and copying machines - HELD THAT:- There are no reason to interfere with the impugned interim order passed by the High Court, more particularly, taking note that certain special leave petitions assailing the same impugned order have already been dismissed by this Court on 17.02.2020. Accordingly, the instant special leave petitions are dismissed.
- 2020 (4) TMI 774 - SUPREME COURT
Valuation of certain items imported under two contracts - inclusion of the price of drawings, design etc. - imports were made in connection with modernisation, expansion and modification for their plant at Durgapur in West Bengal - main case of the appellant is that these two cases involved importation of turnkey projects and the entire contract value have to be treated as the transaction value for the purpose of charging customs duty - appellant’s case in substance is that on a composite reading of Section 14 of the Act, Rules 4 and 9(1)(e) of the 1988 Rules, the price of drawings, design etc., should be added to the invoice value of the imported equipments, as those intangible items formed an integral part of the arrangement agreed upon between the two consortia and SAIL - Stand of the respondent, on the other hand is that those i....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 1361 - SUPREME COURT
Validity of Direction No. (iv) in Paragraph 47 of the impugned judgment - HELD THAT:- The objectionable material has been sent back to the original exporter in the United States. Thus, any alleged illegality in relation to the Customs Act, 1962 is not survived. The appellant appears to have shown their bona fides by ensuring the return of the offensive material. Petition disposed off.
- 2020 (2) TMI 1214 - SUPREME COURT
Application to the High Court, any question of law arising from order of the Tribunal - HELD THAT:- There is nothing in the text of Section 130A which implies that the High Court is mandatorily required to call for a statement from the Tribunal in every case, where a reference is made. This is so because of the language of Sub-Section 4 which opens with an ‘if’. A reading of Section 130A (1) & (4) would make it clear that if the Commissioner of Customs or other party within the prescribed period of limitation applies in the prescribed form to the High Court to direct the Appellate Tribunal to refer to the High Court any question of law arising from such order of the Tribunal, the High Court may do so. What is clear on a reading of sub-section (4) is that the High Court has a discretion on the facts of each case either to d....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 705 - SUPREME COURT
Calculation and Recovery of customs duty - auction sale of warehoused goods - distribution of sale proceeds - argument of Revenue is that the distribution of sale proceeds has to be in accordance with Section 150 of the Act as there is a specific provision concerning custom duty charges which will have precedence over recovery of warehouse charges under 150(2)(e) of the Act - whether the calculation of the custom duty would be assessed as on the date of the deemed removal of goods from the warehouse in terms of Section 61 as interpreted by this Court in Kesoram or on the date of sale for the reason that the importer has failed to seek clearance of the goods imported? HELD THAT:- As per the appellants, the right to recover customs duty is superior to the right to recover warehouse charges in terms of Section 150 of the Act and that sale wa....... + More
- 2020 (2) TMI 704 - SUPREME COURT
Purchase from 100% EOU and export - 100% EOU are not entitled for export incentives and exemption - Vishesh Krishi Upaj Yojna - Validity of Circular dated 21st January, 2009 - challenge on the ground that it is contrary to the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009 - Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 - HELD THAT:- Section 5 of the Act empowers the Central Government to formulate and announce by notification in the official gazette the Foreign Trade Policy and may also, in the like manner, amend that policy from time to time. The Circular dated 21st January, 2009 does not modify or amend the Scheme notified for the year 2006- 07. It only clarifies that 100% export-oriented units which are not entitled to seek exemption cannot avail benefit indirectly through the purchasers from them. It is modification or amendm....... + More
- 2020 (1) TMI 1206 - SUPREME COURT
Detention Order - petitioner appears to be part of a ring of smuggler - seizure of Gold - retraction of petitioner's statement - HELD THAT:- This petition is being disposed of on the ground that there is no proximate link between the events of March, 2013 and March, 2015 and the detention order, which is over four years later. On this ground alone, this writ petition is allowed. The detenu be released immediately.
- 2020 (1) TMI 951 - SUPREME COURT
Advance Licence Scheme - clearance of the consignment free of import duty in terms of Customs N/Ns. 203/1992, 204/1992, both dated 19.05.1992 - HELD THAT:- The order of the High Court is completely unsustainable. The entire consignment was imported under one advance licence issued to the petitioner prior to 19.05.1992. The fortuitous circumstance that part of the consignment was actually imported prior to 25.11.1993 and the rest subsequent thereto is hardly relevant in view of the clarificatory notification dated 18.03.1994 that the exemption would continue to apply subject to fulfilment of the specified terms and conditions. It is not the case of the respondents that the consignments imported subsequently did not meet the terms and conditions of the exemption. It is unfortunate that the High Court failed to follow its own orders in a sim....... + More
........
|
