Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Case Laws
Home Case Index All Cases Customs Tri Customs - Tri
Law
Court
Citation -
Landmark
Order by
 

 

Customs - Tribunal - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 19748 Records

  • 2018 (1) TMI 724 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s Reebok India Company Versus CC, Patparganj

    Valuation - import of goods - inclusion of expenditure on advertisement and promotion - Department took the view that such expenditure is being incurred as a condition for sale of goods by RIL England and hence loaded the amount incurred to the transaction value of goods already imported during the disputed period - Held that - The Interpretative Note of Rule 3 (2) (b) of the Customs Valuation Rules forbids loading the expenses incurred relating ....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 723 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s. Sardana Enterprises, M/s. Express India Council of India Versus CC, New Delhi

    Illegal import - misdeclaration of goods - enhancement of value - as the goods were not properly declared for contents as well as value and accordingly, apart from proposing confiscation of the goods, enhancement of value, notice also proposed penalties on various noticees Held that - It is a fact that the courier consignment did not contain the necessary statutory details on the pack. The details contained were vague and there was a clear attemp....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 722 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    CC, New Delhi Versus M/s Iqbal RIM Traders

    Classification of imported goods - outer RIM part of tractor trolley - classified under CTH 87169010 or under CTH 8708? - Anti Dumping duty is imposable even on CKD or SKD condition - Held that - the goods imported were commercially known and declared in the invoice as tractor trolley parts under Heading 8716. The principal use asserted for such Rim and disk is with the tractor trolley used mainly for agriculture related activities - The Original....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 695 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

    Commissioner of Customs, C.E. & S.T., Noida Versus M/s Sucharu International

    Export of Basmati Rice - Prohibited goods - Held that - the parameter of length on length to breadth ratio as notified in DGFT through said Notification dated 05.11.2008 would be the additional parameter for judging the consignment as Basmati and that to decide whether the verity of rice is Basmati or not the result of the test in the laboratory should be taken into consideration - the parameters laid down under the said Notification dated 05.11........ + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 573 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s K.K. Milk Fresh India Ltd, Shri C.N. Kuchroo, CMD Versus CC New Delhi

    EPCG Scheme - N/N. 12/2012 CE dated 17.03.2012 - mis-classification of imported goods in order to avail ineligible exemption from payment to additional duty of customs (CVD) in terms of S.No.245 of N/N. 12/2012 CE dated 17.03.2012 - it was also alleged that the goods imported were actually second-hand/old and used machinery and, as such, were not eligible for zero duty EPCG scheme exemption under N/N. 22/2013 CUS dated 18.04.2013 and 16/2015-CUS ....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 572 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    CC, New Delhi (ICD, TKD) Versus M/s Daxen Agritech (India) Pvt. Ltd.

    Classification of imported goods - bulk Reishi Gano Powder - bulk Ganocelium Powder - claim of the respondent is to classify the product as Ayurvedic Proprietary Medicine under heading 30039011 claiming the benefit of N/N. 53/2011 (Sl. No. 363). The Revenue did not agree with the same and intended to classify the product as food supplement under CTH 21069099. - Whether the decision of Tribunal, Chennai in the case of DXN Manufacturing (India) Pvt....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 571 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s Roop Automotives Limited Versus CC, ICD (Import) Tughlakabad, New Delhi

    Benefit of Notification No. 158/95 - exported goods, found defective, imported for repair and subsequently re-exported - Held that - it is admitted that the goods have been re-exported within one year of re-import into India. The relevant date under N/N. 158/95 has been clarified by the Board vide Circular dated 03.06.97. Accordingly, considering the date of actual clearance of goods on assessment of bill of entry of all the re-exports in the pre....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 570 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    A.V. Global Corporation Pvt. Ltd. Versus CC, New Delhi

    Penalty u/s 112(b)(ii) of the CA, 1962 - differential amount of CVD paid on being pointed out - Held that - in view of the fact that the differential duty along with interest was paid before initiation of the show cause proceedings and such amount was appropriated into the Government account in the adjudication order, penalties cannot be imposed in absence of any specific substantiation by the Revenue with regard to the involvement of the appella....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 569 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD

    M/s J.P. Rice Exports Pvt. Ltd. And Shri Jitendra Kumar Jain Versus Commissioner of Central Excise, Noida

    Prohibited goods - export of non-Basmati Rice - fulfillment of status of Basmati Rice - Held that - the presence of other rice grain including red grain is to the extent of 43.85 when viewed in the light of the specifications laid down in Schedule 2 to Basmati Rice (Export) Grading and Marketing Rules, 1975, the same does not confer status of Basmati Rice to the consignment in question following - In view of the Hon ble Delhi High Court s decisio....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 537 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    Malu Electrodes Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (NS-I) , Mumbai

    Levy of CVD on import of goods - Manufacture - case of Revenue is that in terms of Chapter Note 4 of Chapter 26, which brings the imported goods Rutile Ore Leucoxene Sand as appearing in Bill of Entry, is concentrate being converted from ore amounting to manufacture, shall be liable to duty - Held that - the amendment which was carried out in the year 2011 basically related to addition of Chapter Note 4 as per which the process of converting Ores....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 499 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    M/s. Bhavani Shipping Services (I) Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Seaport Lines (I) Pvt. Ltd., M/s. SEC Serviced Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin

    Penalty u/s 114 (1) and Section 117 of the CA, 1962 - smuggling - red saner logs - prohibited goods - Held that - the appellant has violated the provisions of Section 114 (1) of the Act as they omitted to take due care for transit of the declared cargo - taking note of the fact that there is no allegation of direct involvement of the appellants in the offence, the penalty of Rs. Two lakhs imposed is on the higher side and requires to be reduced -....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 498 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    Shri Ketan D. RupareI, M/s. Nima Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (EP) , Mumbai

    Misdeclaration of export goods - prohibited goods - Brown Chick Peas - non-Basmati Rice - coriander seeds - Held that - admittedly there was mis-declaration in respect of description as also quantity of the goods. There is no explanation by the appellant as to why the Chick Peas were not declared as brown Chick Peas by them and as to why non-Basmati rice was declared as Basmati rice - Further no explanation is coming forward from the appellant as....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 497 - CESTAT MUMBAI

    Pratap Singh Gaekwad, Charanjit Singh Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import) , Nhava Sheva

    Appellate Jurisdiction - Held that - It may be stated that when an appeal is admitted, order or judgment of lower court is in jeopardy and judgment of Apex Court shall bring the matter to finality as has been held by Apex Court in the case of Union of India Vs. West Coast Paper Ltd. 2004 (2) TMI 344 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA . Therefore, as a rule of consistency, this matter may also go back to the adjudicating authority for appropriate decision o....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 441 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    Manasa Impex Services, Cargomar (CHA) , Trans Asian Shipping Services (P) Ltd., Prasanna Kumar Versus CC & CCE Coimbatore

    Penalty u/s 114 (iii) of the CA, 1962 on the CHA/Shipping Lines - alleged drawback fraud committed by concerned exporters - Jurisdiction to issue SCN - Held that - The decision in the case of Monte International 2016 (4) TMI 406 - CESTAT NEW DELHI has categorically held that the SCN issued by DRI officers under Rule 16 & 16A of Customs and Central Excise Drawback Rules, 1995 is without jurisdiction and such SCN is ab initio void. - The issue ....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 440 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    M/s. Al. Kabir Impex Services Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

    Penalty on CHA - Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013 - delay in issue of SCN - Held that - the concerned Commissionerate has been put to knowledge with regard to the offence on 23.12.2016. However, the show cause notice has been issued on 6.4.2017 which is beyond the period of 90 days prescribed in Regulation 20 - In the case of Santon Shipping Services Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin 2017 (10) TMI 621 - MADRAS HIGH COURT , the Hon ble High Court ....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 439 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    M/s. Chola Logistiks (P) Ltd., M/s. Bhavani Shipping Services India Pvt. Ltd., M/s. Sea Port Lines (India) Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin

    Smuggling - red sander logs - prohibited goods - allegations raised against both these appellants are that they did not obtain the KYC details of the exporter - Held that - Commissioner has observed that the appellant had requested for permission for outsourcing the services of transporting the goods. Pending such application, the offence had occurred. That since the appellant had sought permission for outsourcing the transportation with effect f....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 438 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    Kusumgar Corporates Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai

    Whether the appellant is entitled to the benefit of N/N. 29/2004 CE dated 7.4.2004 as amended from time to time for payment of additional duty of custom equivalent to excise duty under Section 3(1) of CTA, 1975 on the imported filament yarn falling under heading 5402.10 of CETA, 1985 and CTA 1975? - Held that - Tribunal in the case of SRF Polymers Ltd. 2017 (10) TMI 159 - CESTAT CHENNAI had analysed the very same issue, has held that Additional d....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 437 - CESTAT CHENNAI

    M/s. Joveens Expotex Versus Commissioner of Customs, Central Excise & Service Tax, Coimbatore

    Fraudulent drawback - fake bank realization statements (BRCs) - Held that - the appellants were the CHA in respect of the exporters involved in 62 shipping bills wherein the BRCs were found to be fake and the exporters themselves have been found to have obtained IE Codes by giving non-existent addresses. In such circumstances, the needle of suspicion would also ordinarily fall on the CHA as one who had plausibly connived or at least abetted in th....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 436 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s. Avanti Overseas Pvt. Limited, Shri Siddharth Modi. MD Versus Commissioner of Central Excise & Customs, New Delhi

    100 EOU - Duty Drawback - Section 129A of the Customs Act - Maintainability of appeal - Difference of opinion - Held that - In view of findings recorded by Member (Tech) and Member (Judicial), the following difference of opinion needs to be resolved Whether the appeal is maintainable before the Tribunal is view of the bar of Section 129A of the Customs Act as held by the Member (Tech) or the appeal can be entertained by the Tribunal and on merit ....... + More


  • 2018 (1) TMI 435 - CESTAT NEW DELHI

    M/s Fairdeal Enterprises Private Limited Versus CC (General) , New Delhi

    Principles of natural justice - revocation of CHA License - jurisdiction - Held that - while the Commissioner of Customs is vested with powers under Regulation 23 to take urgent action if the situation warrants. The minimum requirements of the principles of natural justice are to be complied with. The charge against the appellant on the preliminary stage is that they have transacted business on behalf of non-existing export firms. It is necessary....... + More


1........
 
 
 
Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

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

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

Go to Mobile Version