|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Tribunal - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 21755 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.
- 2019 (11) TMI 776
Exemption under Rule 26 of the SEZ Rules, 2007 - import of New Garments in the name of "old and used clothing rags" - goods accompanied by Pre-shipment Certificate as per Public Notice no. 12 (RE-2001)/1997-2002 dated 03/05/2001 or not - it is alleged that the unused T-shirts were being sought to be cleared as old and used clothing rags - Confiscation - penalties - HELD THAT:- It is seen that the Bill of Entry describes the goods as old and used clothing rags. In the instant case, the new clothes cannot be called rags and, therefore, there is a mis-declaration to this extent. Nonetheless, the said goods are covered by the letter of permission granted by the Development Commissioner and the appellants are entitled to take the same to the SEZ without payment of duty. The impugned order comes to the conclusion that the T-shirts imp....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 734
Levy of penalty on CHA - Prohibited goods - The case of the revenue is that, the CHA firm namely M/s R.U. Imports-Exports Pvt. Ltd. has played a crucial role in violation of the provision of the Foods Safety & Standards Act, 2006 as well as violation of provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, however, the Adjudicating Authority has failed to impose penalty on the respondent CHA firm and, therefore, the Adjudicating Authority has erred in not imposing penalty under Section 112A on the CHA firm namely M/s R.U. Imports-Exports Pvt. Ltd. HELD THAT:- There is no doubt that the import consignment was of the prohibited goods as same was not found fit for human consumption. The statement of various persons including the Director of the CHA firm reveals that the Director of the CHA firm was aware that the present import consignment as well as the....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 733
Improper importation - Mis-branded sample or not - prohibited imports - imposition of penalties u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - prohibition from import or not - Section 25 of FSS Act, 2006 - HELD THAT:- In the appeals filed by both the appellants, no evidence has been adduced which contradicts the facts that the import consignment were of the goods which did not confirm to the standards laid down under Food Safety & Standards Act, 2006. The test report of the samples drawn from the import consignment has categorically mentioned that the samples are unsafe and mis-branded as per the provisions of Section 3 (1) of the FSS Act, 2006. The argument made by the appellant is not legally sustainable as the Customs Act under Section 112A provides that penalty under the Section should not exceed the value of the goods. Since, the import c....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 687
Provisional release of gold stock in trade - Advance Authorisation Scheme - Exhibition Export Scheme - no reason given for refusal to release the goods provisionally - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- No cogent reason given for refusal to release the goods provisionally. Rather the impugned order is non-speaking and cryptic. This is clearly a case of non exercise of discretion vested in him fairly, by the Revenue Authority, rendering the provision of Sec.110A of the Act, practically otiose. The Department has not adduced any evidence to contradict the fact that the same jewellery has been imported by the appellant which had been exported for exhibition purpose - At this juncture, we are only examining whether the import of the subject seized gold jewellery was in violation of any of the provision of Customs Act, 1962 and Import....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 623
100% EOU - utilisation of input imported for manufacture of finished goods within jurisdiction - demand of anti-dumping duty - Polypropylene (PP) Bags and Twisting Yarn - Section 28(10) of the Customs Act - demand raised on the ground that the Appellant had made DTA sales of its finished goods during the said period - whether the Appellant had utilised the inputs imported from ADD jurisdiction in the manufacture of its finished goods cleared in the DTA? HELD THAT:- The charging section for imposition of ADD is Section 9A(1) of the Customs Tariff Act and the notifications issued thereunder. However, Section 9A(2A) of the Customs Tariff Act which specifically deals with an EOU starts with a non obstante clause and over-rides the charging section 9A(1). The entire demand is based on the laws of averages/proportionate consumption basis and no....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 622
Import of certain capital goods under EPCG Scheme - concessional rate of duty - N/N. 97/2004- Customs - Inclusion of freight charges - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- The AMW paid the Freight forwarder an amount of ₹ 4,32,98,915/- where as in the 15 Bills of entries they included freight amounting to ₹ 1,60,69,376/- only. As a result an amount of ₹ 2,92,35,480/- escaped inclusion in the assessable value. The reason given by AMW is that at the time of filing bill of entry in first 10 cases they were aware of the actual freight charged by the freight forwarder whereas in last 5 Bills of entries they were not aware of the actual freight payable to the freight forwarder. The reason cited was that the variable cost based on CAF/BAF was not known. The method of calculating freight agreed by AMW with PLIL was very c....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 621
Revocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - not obtaining authorization from the importer - violation of Regulation 10(a) of the CBLR, 2018 - not advising the client - violation of Regulation 10(d) of the CBLR, 2018 - non-compliance with due diligence - Regulation 10(e) of the CBLR - non-verification of Regulation 10(n) of the CBLR - HELD THAT:- Out of the 4 violations alleged against the appellant, the Inquiry Officer has exonerated the appellant under Regulation 10(e) and 10(n) and has only found the appellant violating Regulations 10(a) and 10(d) which pertains to not obtaining authorization from the importer and not advising his client properly. As far as verification of the documents are concerned, the appellant has been exonerated and we find that the appellant was approached by one Mr. Alexander Nathan who is alleg....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 570
Imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) for ₹ 5 lakh and Section 114AA of CA - it was alleged that the appellant being a Chartered Engineer issued a Certificate in respect of import of embroidery machine under EPCG whereas the machines were not installed and diverted - HELD THAT:- The whole purpose of requirement of the Certificate from the Chartered Engineer is that machine which are imported under EPCG have been installed in the factory. Only on that basis the benefit of EPCG exemption is available to the importer. Without verifying the fact that the machines are installed in the factory the appellant was facilitated to evade Customs duty, therefore, there is a serious offence on the part of the appellant. The appellant is rightly liable for penalty under Section 112(a) and 114AA. However, considering the fact that the appellant have bee....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 569
Concessional rate of duty - determination of date of Import - time limitation - extension of re-export bond period - whether for the purpose of computing the period of 6 months or one year, the date of actual clearance/import of goods should be taken as date of import or the date on which the Bill of Entry was filed by the importer? - Benefit of N/N. 158/95-Cus., dated 14-11-1995 HELD THAT:- The concessional rate of duty prescribed is 15% of the aggregate of the duties of Customs, which would be leviable, in case of goods which are re-exported within six months of the date of importation. In case, the goods which are re-exported after six months, but within one year of the date of Importation, the rate of duty chargeable would be 30% of the aggregate of the duties of Customs. Therefore, the eligibility for partial exemption is dependent o....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 568
Quantum of Merchant Overtime Fee Charges to the Customs Officers - benefit of N/N. 69/98-Cus. (N.T.), dated 4-9-1998 - Circular No. 101/2003-Cus., dated 5-12-2003 - appellant submits that irrespective of the number of documents required to be checked by the Customs Officers, the payments would relate only to the number of hours spent by the officer whereas Revenue submits that the above clarification issued by the Board is not in reference to the number of AREs-1 relating to each and every export but the same refers to only the number of documents in each AREs-1 which may be multiple in number. HELD THAT:- There are no force in the contention of the Ld. Advocate. Admittedly, the said clarification is in respect of the number of documents of each importer/exporter in respect of the value or of the consignment. The same, nowhere, clarifies ....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 542
Levy of Anti-dumping duty - sodium saccharin - benefit of N/N. 41/2007 - case of appellant is that the demand is time-barred as the goods were imported; goods were examined and tested and were provisionally released against bond; provisional assessment was finalised and test bond was cancelled on 13-11-2009, show cause notice was issued on 21-10-2010 which is beyond six months. HELD THAT:- The N/N. 41/2007 & 136/2009 mentions the item to be only ‘saccharin’ falling under Tariff item 2925 11 00 and not Salts of Saccharin - unless the notification is suitably worded cannot be claimed to be of all grades importantly, when Anti-Dumping Duty notification mentions the names of only the saccharin, it cannot be read to include its salts also. The notification did not intend to levy Anti-Dumping Duty on salts of saccharin as submit....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 501
Refund of excess Customs duty paid - finalization of provisional assessment - Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 - unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- The doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable in the present case because the Shipping Corporation of India is a Public Sector Undertaking and in view of the Supreme Court decision in the case of MAFATLAL INDUSTRIES LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [1996 (12) TMI 50 - SUPREME COURT] where it was held that in the case of Public Sector Undertaking, doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable. Further, the doctrine of unjust enrichment will not be applicable because the appellant is seeking only the refund of excess duty paid inter alia at the time of provisional assessment and when the assessment was finalized it was found that he has paid excess amount of ₹ 38,85,649/- which should....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 500
Valuation of imported goods - hot rolled steel plates (non-alloy) - enhancement of value - similar goods or not - HELD THAT:- Though there is no provision under section 128 of Customs Act, 1962 for hearing both sides before passing of an order by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) and it was necessary to issue a show cause notice proposing the grounds of enhancement, unless waived by the importer, the Tribunal was magnanimous enough to allow the pleas of Revenue to be argued before the first appellate authority on their appeal. It was expected that the first appellate authority would render its decision after hearing, and considering, the submissions of both sides. We are unable to satisfy ourselves that the imports by M/s Mazgaon Dock Ltd could be designated as ‘similar’ merely because of being contemporaneous. From the re....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 499
Classification of imported goods - Benefit of exemption - import of aluminous cement - only point of allegation that can sustain in the present case is that the assessee has wrongly classified the imported goods in their bills of entry - HELD THAT:- The importer assessee is not an expert in classification of products and it is always possible that they claimed wrong classification. It is open for the department to direct the importer to correct classification or issue a show-cause notice proposing revision of classification. Merely claiming the wrong classification by itself does not amount to mis-declaration of the goods and there is nothing on record to show that the description of the goods in the Bill of entry and other documents as well as in the test report do not match - The department’s case has to fail on this ground alone ....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 453
Imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - aiding and abetting the importer to undervalue the imported furniture - appellant engaged in the business of hotel management consultancy - reliance placed upon the statement of the appellant as well as the statement given by the main importer Shri HR Ravichandra - HELD THAT:- Commissioner has wrongly observed in the impugned order that the appellant has admitted that he has helped the importer Gardenia Comforts in undervaluation of the furniture. Commissioner has misread the evidence on record and has come to the conclusion on the basis of the involvement of the appellant in other cases wherein the appellant has confessed his guilty and has also approached the Settlement Commission along with other importers and paid the penalty of ₹ 10,000/- imposed by the Settlement Comm....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 452
Enhancement of penalty - Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - import of different type of ‘Catheters’ - Drugs or not - imoprt of Catheter through Trivandrum Airport - designated airport or not - N/N. 1468 E dated 06.10.2005 - Whether there was any mis-declaration of description of goods in the bills of entry or not? - HELD THAT:- The appellant has been regularly importing the Catheter from the Trivandrum Airport during the period 23.11.2005 to 17.03.2011 and has been paying Customs Duty and no objection was raised by the Department during these six years regarding any violation made by the appellant. Further, the N/N. 146 E dated 06.10.2005 issued by the Department of Health was not in the knowledge of the appellant as well as the Customs officials and no objection was raised against the appellant. Subsequently, after th....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 451
Classification of goods - Antenna for base station imported by the Respondent used in mobile telecommunication network - Respondents during the period May 2017 to August 2017 imported “Antenna” for Base Transmission Station(BTS) declared the same as “parts” classifying it under CTSH 85177090 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975; alleging that the said imported goods are classifiable under CSH 85176290 - Board’s Circular No.01/2018 dt.15.1.2018 - Refund of Customs Duty - duty paid under protest. Whether the antenna for base station would be considered as a ‘machine’ and accordingly classifiable under CSH 85176290 as claimed by the Revenue or as “parts” classifiable under CSH 85177090, claimed by the Respondent? HELD THAT:- Prior to 2007, the heading 8517 was consisting of Apparatus i.e. telephon....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 450
Levy of Additional Duty of Customs - Section 116 of Finance Act, 1999 - HELD THAT:- Very identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal in the case of M/S ATLANTIC SHIPPING PVT. LTD VERSUS C.C. JAMNAGAR (PREV) [2018 (9) TMI 458 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] where it was held that the benefit of Exemption from additional duty of customs levied under Sub Section (1) of section 116 of Finance Act, 1999 has to be extended to the goods which are entitled to exemption under Notification 94/96-Customs. Tribunal being the identical issue involved the Additional Duty of Customs in the appellant’s case is exempted in terms of the Sub Section (1) of the Section 116 of the Finance Act, 1999. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
- 2019 (11) TMI 389
100% EOU - Concessional rate of duty - removal of goods in contravention of Section 72(1)(a) and Section 72(1) (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and without the permission of the Development Commissioner SEEPZ, Mumbai and without execution of the Bond - benefit of N/N. 52/2003-Customs dated 31.03.2003 - whether the appellants were right in clearing the lathes imported vide Notification No.53/97-Cus. Dated 03.06.97 to the domestic tariff area without permission of the Development Commissioner on the grounds that they were surplus in terms of Para 6.16 of the Import Export Policy? - rate of depreciation to be applied in terms of the Notification No.57/2003-Cus dated 31.03.2003 or in terms of the Exim Policy? HELD THAT:- The Appellants have cleared the goods to DTA or EPCG holders during the period August to September 2003. During this period not....... + More
- 2019 (11) TMI 388
Restoration of appeal - appeal dismissed on on monetary limits - HELD THAT:- The appeal has been dismissed by wrongly applying the revised circular on monetary limits. Hence, it is required to restore the appeal to the files of the Tribunal which we hereby do - ROA application allowed. Classification of imported goods - Mono Pottasium Phosphate - HELD THAT:- The Tribunal has held in the cases of VARDHAMAN FERTILIZERS & SEEDS PVT LTD., ANIKA INTERNATIONAL RR SHAH VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS PUNE [2016 (11) TMI 2 - CESTAT MUMBAI], COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) NHAVA SHEVA VERSUS SOLUFEED PLANT PRODUCT & SERVICES PVT. LTD., RICHFIELD FERTILIZERS LIMITED, MAHAFEED SPECIALTY FERTILIZERS (INDIA) PVT. LTD. AND TATA CHEMICALS LIMITED [2018 (4) TMI 1346 - CESTAT MUMBAI], COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT) , NHAVA SHEVA VERSUS DEEPAK AG....... + More
........
|
