Tax Management India. Com
        A knowledge portal that keeps us updated ...
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Case Laws Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Manuals News SMS Articles Highlights
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases Customs SC Customs - SC This
Citation -
Order by


Customs - Supreme Court - Case Laws

Showing 1721 to 1740 of 1752 Records

  • 1963 (5) TMI 57

    Whether when Art. 289 provides for the exemption of State property from Union taxation, it only provides for exemption from that kind of Union taxation which is a tax directly on property? - Whether the proposed extension of customs and excise duties to all goods belonging to the State Governments, imported or exported in the one case and manufactured or produced in the other, would not offend Art. 289? - If the expression taxes in relation to th....... + More

  • 1963 (4) TMI 69

    Constitutional validity of certain notifications and directions issued under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and the Export Control Order, 1958 - whether the restrictions and control for which provision might be made by s. 3 would not include a provision for canalising the trade in any particular commodity? - Held that - It would be a matter of policy for the Government to determine, having regard to the nature of the commodity and t....... + More

  • 1963 (2) TMI 32

    Order of the High Court of Bombay allowing the State appeal and convicting the appellant of the offence under Section 5 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, hereinafter called the Act, for having contravened the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, hereinafter called the Order, and sentencing him to three months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of ₹ 2,000/- challenged - Held that - The provision in clause 5 of the Order empowering the ....... + More

  • 1962 (9) TMI 51

    The petitioners however cannot question the validity of those orders by petition under Article 32 of the Constitution, for the Act under which the orders were passed read with S.R.O. 3315 is not assailed as ultra vires and the only ground on which it is said that a fundamental right has been violated is that there has been by implication a misconstruction of para 6 of S.R.O. 3315 by the Board. The validity of the orders impugned cannot be questio....... + More

  • 1962 (9) TMI 5

    ... ...
    ... ... with this matter on a writ petition under Article 32 and as no error of jurisdiction is alleged, there is no violation of any fundamental right. 8.It seems to us that this petition is wholly without foundation and we therefore, dismiss it with costs.

  • 1962 (9) TMI 4

    Whether on the facts proved Sitaram Agarwala could be held to be concerned in the importation of gold into this country? - Held that - The High Court was right in its judgment in regard to the facts of the case and their being insufficient to bring the respondent Sitaram Agarwala within the words concerned in . Appeal dismissed........ + More

  • 1962 (5) TMI 23

    Has the Collector jurisdiction to adjudicate whether the goods are liable to be confiscated? - Whether goods have been imported contrary to the prohibition or restriction imposed by an order made under Section 3(1) of the Act of 1947? - Whether there has been a breach of a condition of a licence and whether, therefore, confiscation should be ordered under Section 167(8) of the Sea Customs Act and further penalty imposed? - Held that - Appeal allo....... + More

  • 1962 (4) TMI 121

    ... ...
    ... ... Dy. Commissioner, Customs & Excise as well as the Minister of Excise & Taxation and the demand notice issued by the Collector at the instance of the excise authorities. The appellant would entitled to its cost throughout. 16. Appeal allowed.

  • 1962 (4) TMI 89

    Whether the High Court would have jurisdiction to issue a writ against the Collector of Customs Calcutta in spite of the fact that his order was taken in appeal to the Central Board of Revenue against which the High Court could not issue a writ and the appeal had been dismissed? - Held that - No hesitation in holding that the order of the origin% authority must be held to have merged in the order of the appellate authority in a case like the pres....... + More

  • 1962 (4) TMI 1

    Whether the feed-oats fell within Item 42 or within Item 32 of the Circular? - Held that - In the present case it could not be contended that uncrushed oats did not answer the description of grain and therefore the decision of the Customs authorities holding that the oats imported fell within Item 32 could not be said to be a view which on no reasonable interpretation could be entertained. - The mere fact therefore that a grain is capable of bein....... + More

  • 1962 (3) TMI 2

    Confiscation of smuggled goods from a person not concerned with their importation - Justified - Confiscation - Natural justice - Reasonable belief....... + More

  • 1961 (11) TMI 60

    onus to prove on the department that the gold was of foreign origin, and this foreign gold had been imported after restrictions had been imposed in March 1947. extremely improbable that the gold would remain in the same shape of bars and with the same fineness as when imported after the passage of this length of time....... + More

  • 1961 (11) TMI 2

    Whether the Customs authorities are entitled to the custody of records seized by them under a search warrant issued under Section 172 of the Sea Customs Act, and the Magistrate cannot deny them the right to carry away the documents for their scrutiny? - Whether the order of the Chief Presidency Magistrate gave inadequate facilities to the Customs authorities for inspection and scrutiny of the documents? - Held that - We must discharge the order o....... + More

  • 1961 (11) TMI 1

    Whether the possession obtained by the Customs Department by goods being conveyed to and deposited at the nearest Customs-house within the last words of the second paragraph of Section 180 are goods which have been seized under the Act within the opening words of Section 178A? - Held that - The delivery to the Customs authorities under Section 180 is not a seizure under the Act within Section 178A it would follow that the judgment of the High Cou....... + More

  • 1961 (8) TMI 28

    Whether a Customs Officer, either under the Land Customs Act, 1924 (Act XIX of 1924) or under the Sea, Customs Act, 1878 (Act VIII of 1878), is a . police officer within the meaning of that expression in s. 25 of the Indian Evidence Act? - Held that - The Customs Officers are not police officers for the purpose of s. 25 of the Evidence Act. We further hold that the conviction of the respondent for the offences under s. 23(1) of the Foreign Exchan....... + More

  • 1961 (8) TMI 27

    Does the fact that the petitioners have been granted licence approximately for 45% of the total value of the goods exported amount to discrimination entitling them to protection of Art. 14 of the Constitution ? - Held that - On the materials placed before the Committee.-.there. evidence to show that the record produced by the petitioners was unsatisfactory ; they were not satisfied that the prices which the petitioners said they had paid for purc....... + More

  • 1961 (4) TMI 83

    Whether the High Court should have rejected the writ petition of the respondent in limine because he had not exhausted all the statutory remedies open to him for having his grievance redressed? - Held that - On the whole and taking into account the peculiar circumstances of this case that the High Court has not exercised its discretion improperly in entertaining the writ application or granting the relief prayed for by the respondent and that no ....... + More

  • 1961 (4) TMI 9

    Whether a particular policy as regards imports is, on a consideration of all the various factors involved, in the general interests of the public? - Held that - The attack on the validity of para 6(h) of the Imports Control Order, 1955 fails. The contention that Section 3 of the Imports and Exports Control Act, 1947, is bad to the extent that it permits the Government to make an order as in para 6(h) of the Imports Control Order, 1955, consequent....... + More

  • 1961 (4) TMI 2

    Penalty can be recovered only by officer of customs and not by Chief Customs Authority - Confiscation - Commutation of order of confiscation to penalty....... + More

  • 1961 (3) TMI 90

    Whether respondents 1 and 2 have cancelled the licences in circumstances which amounted to a denial of its right to be given a reasonable opportunity of being heard, as provided by cl. 10 of the Imports (Control) Order, 1955, before the impugned orders were passed and thus arbitrarily and without authority of law deprived the petitioner of its fundamental right to carry on its business under Art. 19 of the constitution? - Held that - It is not ne....... + More

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.