|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Tribunal - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 22636 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 (7) TMI 1027 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Classification of imported goods - aircraft engine along with engine stand as parts of aircraft - goods imported into the country or shifted from Delhi to Bangalore? - to be classified under CTH 8803 30 00 or would be CTH 8411 12 00 for Aircraft Engine and CTH 7326 19 90 for Engine Stand - applicability of Sl. No. 346D of Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 01.03.2002 / Sl. No. 454 of Notification No. 12/2012-Cus., dated 17.03.2012 or otherwise? - sustenance of demand without reviewing/challenging the assessment in the Bills of Entry - extended period of limitation - penalties - interest - confiscation of goods. Whether the goods are to be treated as imported into the country or shifted from Delhi to Bangalore as claimed by the appellants?. If so, whether they are eligible for the benefit of notification no. 94/96- Cus dated 16.12.1996? ....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 856 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Failure to file EGM - responsibility of the appellant to file the EGM to the proper officer before departure of the conveyance from the Customs station - violation of Section 41 of the Customs Act, 1962 - penalty under Section 117 of the Act - HELD THAT:- The appellant is not master of the vessel but only vessel operator / shipping line who has filed the EGM on behalf of the master of the vessel. As per Rule 96 of the CGST Rules, 2017, the shipping bill filed by an exporter shall be deemed to be an application for refund of integrated tax paid on the goods exported, out of India, once both EGM and valid return in Form GSTR-3/GSTRB are furnished by the applicant. The IGST Refund module for exports has an inbuilt procedure to automatically grant refund after validating the Shipping Bill date against the GST Returns. The common errors and co....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 768 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Maintainability of appeal u/s 129(A) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Provisional release of imported goods - Section 110 A of the Customs Act,1962 - HELD THAT:- The appellants have been cooperating with the investigation and have deposited substantial sums during the investigation only before the passing of any formal adjudicating order confirming the duty. Under the circumstances, it is found that the appellant has established his bona fides. The appellants have requested to set aside the conditions of provisional release. The ends of Justice would be met if the amount of Bank Guarantee to be given is modified suitably, while keeping the condition of Bond as it is - Bank amount for submission of Guarantee is fixed at ₹ 5,00,000 in place of ₹ 30,00,000 and the amount of ₹ 65,79,899/ fixed for Bond remains unaltered - appeal allowed in part.
- 2021 (7) TMI 763 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Levy of penalty u/s 117 of CA - non-filing of EGM/shipping bills as required under section 41 of the Customs Act, 1962 - problem of EGM errors which hamper IGST refund processing - HELD THAT:- Section 41 thus cast duty upon the person in-charge of conveyance/carrier to file the EGM in relation to the goods which are exported. In case of any omission or error in filing documents, the law provides for opportunity to correct the same. It has to be seen that the proper officer of the Customs has to first verify whether the goods have reached the port. So also, the proper officer has to verify whether the documents regarding the export have been filed including the shipping bills. Only after such verification, the let export order or out of charge is issued. If LEO was issued without EGM being filed, it would imply that the proper officer has ....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 762 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Levy of late fee charges - delay in filing the bill of entry - sufficient reason for delay in filing the bill of entry was shown or not - HELD THAT:- From the records, it is clear that the original importer could not clear the consignment and had to sell the goods to another person. Since necessary amendments have to be made in the shipping bill which has to be filed along with necessary documents by the new purchaser, the bill of entry could be filed only on 14.11.2018. This being the facts which have been properly established by document itself, the view taken by the authorities below that the reasons are not genuine / bonafide cannot sustain. Tribunal in various decisions have analyzed similar facts and have held that the late fee imposed are not warranted - reliance placed in the case of M/S. BLUELEAF TRADING COMPANY VERSUS THE COMMIS....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 734 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Requirement of pre-deposit at the stage of filing appeal before CESTAT (second appeal) - whether appellant was required to pay 10% separately over and above 7.5% in terms of Section 129E of the Customs Act? - HELD THAT:- The issue, whether the appellant is required to pay total 10% i.e. 7.5% + 2.5% at the stage of filing appeal before CESTAT has been settled by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of M/S SANTANI SALES ORGANISATION VERSUS CENTRAL EXCISE, CUSTOMS AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIUBNAL, DELHI AND OTHERS [2018 (6) TMI 249 - DELHI HIGH COURT] where it was held that It is directed that the petitioner and others on filing second appeal before the Tribunal are required to deposit 10% of the amount of duty/ penalty as confirmed by the first appellate authority inclusive of 7.5% pre-deposit made for the first appeal. 10% woul....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 726 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Service of order - appeal rejected on the ground of time limitation - burden to prove - power of DRI to issue SCN - HELD THAT:- From the facts, it is seen that the order-in-original was passed on 22.06.2016. From the dispatch register maintained by department, it is seen that the OIO was dispatched on 12.07.2016. However, there is no supporting evidence to show that the order has been served / communicated on the addressee. Dispatching a letter/consignment by registered post would raise a presumption that it is served upon the assessee. Such presumption is a rebuttal one - In the present case, the appellant has contended that they have not received the Order-in-Original. Then, the burden is on the department to establish that the order was communicated / served on the appellant. The word used in section 128 as well as 153 is communication....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 712 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Rectification of mistake - error apparent on the face of record - review order within the time limitation or not - seeking restoration of appeal - HELD THAT:- Section 129D (3) of the Customs Act, 1962 prescribes a period of three months for the Review Committee to pass its order, which fact was duly taken note of by me in the Final Order impugned herein. Even Higher Courts have held that ‘month’ appearing in the statute, when applied to the case on hand, would commence from the date of communication i.e., 11.03.2019 and the said three month period would expire on 11.06.2019 - Hence, the Review Order passed here in the case on hand is clearly within the time limitation prescribed. This has given rise to an apparent mistake in the Final Order, which requires rectification. Accordingly, the Revenue has come up with this restorati....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 688 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Provisional release of seized goods - various types of imported fabrics - 100% Polyester Knitted Fabric - goods appeared to be of higher quality than what was declared - goods were made of elastomeric yarn or not - seizure of goods under section 110 of the Customs Act - enhancement of declared value - non-related parties. HELD THAT:- Section 110A provides that any goods seized under section 110, may, pending the order of the adjudicating authority, be released to the owner on taking a bond from him with such security and conditions as the adjudicating authority may require - Discretion is, therefore, cast upon the adjudicating authority for determining the value of the bond to be taken and the security deposit as also the conditions to be imposed while passing an order for provisional release of the goods. The exercise of this discretion ....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 685 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Misuse of EPCG licence scheme - use of false and incorrect documents for export of garments as third party exporter - Whether the allegation that the appellants have not fulfilled export obligation is sustainable or not? - HELD THAT:- On perusal of EPCG licence it is seen that it is issued in 2015 by DGFT and the period for completion of the export obligation is six years. Show cause notice has been issued on 18.11.2020. The contention of the appellant that SCN alleging non-fulfilment of export obligation is premature is therefore not without merits. From the conditions of the EPCG licence, it is also seen that licence holder may discharge the export obligation by way of direct exports as well as through third party exports. In the event of third party exports, name of the third party exporter, name of the EPCG licence holder, licence num....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 673 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Levy of penalty - Proceedings against the Custodian / Cargo Service provider - Smuggling - Smart Tortoises - Red Sanders - it is alleged that appellants had allowed the cargo to move into the sterile area without checking the status of Customs clearance i.e., without checking whether LEO was given or not - violation of Regulation 5(n) of HCCAR,2009 - Allowing unauthorised persons to enter into the area - Penalty. HELD THAT:- It is seen that allegations made against the appellants that shortcomings as a custodian lead to smuggling of ‘Star Tortoises’ on 07.11.2018 is without any basis. There is no evidence to show that the appellants have in any connection to such seizure of ‘Star Tortoises’. The allegations in show-cause notice now narrows down to the Shipping Bill No.5981482, dated 01.08.2019, wherein the LEO was ....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 660 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Amendment of shipping bills - appellant had filed draw-back shipping bills and, thereafter, requested for amendment for including MEIS benefit - DGFT Public Notice No.9/2015-20, dated 16.05.2016 - sub-section(3) of section 41 of Customs Act - HELD THAT:- It is seen from sub-section(3) of section 41 that if EGM/shipping bill filed is incorrect or incomplete, a request can be made for amendment of the same. Such request can be allowed on satisfaction by the proper office that the request made is genuine. The appellant has requested for amendment to include MEIS benefit. The department does not have a case that the appellant is not eligible for MEIS benefit claimed by them. The appeal has been filed by department stating flimsy grounds that the department would not be able to retrieve the shipping bill so as to check and verify the amendment....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 634 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Jurisdiction - power of DRI to issue SCN - Levy of penalty - violation by a Customs House Agent or Customs Broker under the respective regulations - seizure of Red Sanders on seven noticees - HELD THAT:- The penalty levied is invalid, since the Notice issued by the DRI is held to be invalid, by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [2021 (3) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT]. The Board had thereafter issued an Instruction No. 04/2021-Customs dated 17.03.2021 in F.No.450/72/2021-Cus-IV stating that the said instruction is issued specifically in respect of the Show Cause Notice against Shri Anil Aggarwal and 11 others and, in any case, the Instruction cannot override the decision of a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court, which is binding as the law of the land. Clearly therefore....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 630 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Smuggling - Gold Bar - mis-declaration of goods - burden of proof u/s 123 of Customs Act, 1962 - right to claim ownership / redemption of the goods - It is argued by the ld. Counsel that due to tampering of the serial number on the gold bar, it cannot be ascertained whether the gold has suffered Customs duty - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the parcel was mis-declared. Although the appellants knew that the parcel contained gold bar, they did not give proper instructions to declare the goods correctly before the Customs authorities. So also they did not furnish necessary documents for transportation of such gold by airlines. Only after the goods were detained by the airlines and coming to know that the airlines has informed the Customs authorities, a mail was sent by Sri Ravi Nakath along with sales invoice dated 23.12.2016. If the g....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 579 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Reassessment of bills of entry - reassessment sought on the ground of wrong classification - N95 Respirator Mask (RC016) - classification of the item under CTH 6307 9020 adopted - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute as regards classification is concerned and it was based on the wrong classification of the appellant that prompted it to seek re-assessment of the Bills-of-Entry, which request is very much correct. Therefore, the direction of the Adjudicating Authority to get the original order modified by resorting to Section 128 ibid. was uncalled for - However, even the Learned Departmental Representative agreed to the request of the Learned Advocate for the appellant for remanding the issue for re-assessment. It is not as though the appellant did not seek re-assessment even before the Adjudicating Authority; the Authority did not discharge hi....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 578 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Allegation for conducting market inquiry improperly by the Inspector (Cutoms) (now deceased) - Illegal availment of drawback - fraudulent export of goods by the companies of kingpin - penalties u/s 114A and 114AA of Customs Act - HELD THAT:- Nothing has been discussed by the Adjudicating Authority as to what has rendered the alleged casual and amateur manner of conducting market inquiry into an act of alleged abetment for fraudulent export. To further appreciate, it is important to understand the ingredients of the penal offence, namely, abetment. Section 107 of Indian Penal Code 1862 defines abetment to include instigating any person to do a thing or engaging with one or more persons in any conspiracy for the doing of a thing, if an act or illegal omission takes place in pursuance of that conspiracy and in order to the doing of that thin....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 509 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Abandonment of goods - relinquishment of title to the goods - out of charge order already given by the proper officer for home consumption at a prior date - Section 23(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The appellant had paid the fine amount of ₹ 30,000/- and the penal amount of ₹ 10,000/- vide Challan No.2017457502 and the mode of payment being e-payment, the appellant did not challenge, but paid the same without questioning the legality of the same. This means that the offence, as alleged, had indeed been committed, which aspect is clearly hit by the proviso to Section 23(2) ibid., which takes away the right of the owner to relinquish his title to such goods. It is too late a stage for the appellant to raise an issue in so far as the levy of fine and penalty are concerned since, without questioning the same at the app....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 378 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Suspension of Customs Broker License - Regulation 16(2) of Customs Broker Licensing Regulation, 2018 - prohibition on export of fabric used to make masks - N/N. 52 (2015-20) dated 19.3.2020 - Case of Smuggling - HELD THAT:- Regulation 10 of CBLR, 2018 places various obligations upon the Customs Broker which, if not complied with, can attract revocation of license and/or imposition of penalty under Regulation 14. This is not an issue to be decided at this stage, that as the matter is in process sub-judice, before the lower authorities. Pending decision on the action under Regulation 14, the Commissioner by the impugned order has suspended the license of the Customs Broker under Regulation 16. It is the case of the appellant that this suspension can be done only when immediate action is required. It is the case of the Revenue that even befo....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 181 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Seeking extension of period for re-export - import of Container of Water treatment plant under N/N. 3/1989-Cus dated 09.01.1989 - pecuniary jurisdiction of Deputy Commissioner of Customs in terms of section 122 of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the appellant could not re-export the imported container within the required period. Hence requested for time extension for another six months - The appellant could not meet the extended time limit as well. Hence sought another time extension on the ground that the RWT is required for event at Varanasi to be demonstrated over a period of two months. Letter dated 15.3.2016 as annexed on the record shows that while seeking the time extension the appellants were repeatedly acknowledging that in case of failure to re-export within the time extended, the appellants shall be depositing the r....... + More
- 2021 (7) TMI 161 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Refund of CVD and SAD paid in excess - Time limitation - Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the application for refund is made under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of PAROS ELECTRONICS (P) LTD. VERSUS UNION OF INDIA [1995 (1) TMI 95 - SUPREME COURT], while dealing with the above provision, has inter alia held that If the application is under Section 27 of the Act then the authority, being a creation of the statute, must act within the ambit of that provision and if the application is delayed he has no alternative but to reject it as barred by limitation. There are no reasons to interfere with the rejection of refund - appeal dismissed.
........
|
