Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property/ Transactions Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Customs - Tribunal - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 20 of 22872 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.

• 2022 (1) TMI 813 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  
  Revocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of the security deposit - penalty under Regulation 18 of the CBLR, 2018 - import of Cigarettes and Food Supplement/proteins - seeking clearance of goods declared as Food Stuff (Chocolate etc.) Cigarettes and Cosmetics - prohibited/restricted goods - benefit of N/N. 03/57-Cus. dated 08.01.1957 - Customs Circular No. 13/2007 dated 02.03.2007 - HELD THAT:- It is incorrectly held that the appellant have violated the provisions of Regulation 10(d) of CBLR, 2018. Further, the appellant has exercised due diligence in carrying out his duties. The appellant knew that in case of diplomatic consignment etc. cigarette are exempt from payment of customs duty under Notification No. 3/57-Cus. dated 08.01.1957, when the same are imported for their personal use or use in the Diplomatic Mission. In the inst....... + More

---

• 2022 (1) TMI 812 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  
  Valuation of imported goods - Halani Star - rejected of declared Cost, Insurance and Freight (CIF) value value - redetermination of value under rule 9 of the 2007 Valuation Rules - opportunity of cross examination - confiscation of goods - redemption fine - penalty - HELD THAT:- What has to be seen under section 14(1) of the Customs Act, as amended in 2007, is the transaction value of the goods imported or exported for the purpose of customs duty and transaction value is stated to be the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India for delivery at that time and place of importation. Sub-section (1) of section 14 of the Customs Act also makes it clear that the price actually paid or payable for the goods will not be treated as ‘transaction value’ where the buyer and the seller are related to each o....... + More

---

• 2022 (1) TMI 723 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  
  100% EOU - demand of duty on wastage/ breakage, over and above the permissible limit, of raw materials imported duty free, during the course of manufacture of final products by the EOU - whether the appellants would be eligible for the higher norms fixed by Ministry in respect of wastage/ loss/ breakage of raw materials? - whether the demand is premature? - HELD THAT:- The appellants have represented to the Ministry to revise the SION norms in blanks imported by them. Ministry after considering the request of the appellants have communicated to the development commissioner that a wastage of 15 percent has been fixed and the development commissioner may take necessary action under para 6.7(e) of Hand Book of Procedures Volume-I. Thus, in view of the decisions dated 23/9/2008 and 26/11/2008 of the Commerce Ministry, in the appellant’s....... + More

---

• 2022 (1) TMI 574 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  
  Seeking refund of deposit - the amount is deposit or duty? - provisional assessment as a security to the bond executed by the appellant - time limitation - unjust enrichment - Section 27 of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- Under the Head of Account it is a customs duty which was paid under account heading No.0037 and also in the description coloumn it is clearly mentioned that the deposit of amount is equal to 20% of provisional duty therefore, the amount of ₹ 16,39,458/- has been paid as customs duty only therefore it is not a deposit as has been claimed by the appellant but it is a custom duty. Since in view of the documentary evidence, it is established that the amount for which refund was sought for by the appellant is not a deposit but it is a duty. Therefore, the refund is clearly governed by Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 therefore, all the provision of limitation and unjust enrichment, etc is clearly applicable. Appeal is dismissed.

---

• 2022 (1) TMI 523 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  
  Benefit of Exemption - Rig trident imported in April 1988 - benefit of Notification No. 516/86 dated 30.12.1986 on the strength of the essentiality certificate issued on 21.12.2011 much after the validity of the notification - HELD THAT:- In the instant case, the impugned goods were imported in 1988 and the goods were seized and such seizure was upheld by this Bench and was affirmed by the Apex Court. The appellants were not in the possession of the essentiality certificate at the time of import or at the time of filing of Bill of Entry; the essentiality certificate was applied and issued at a much later date after the expiry of the Notification and there too by a different authority which was not prescribed under the Notification claimed. Therefore, the facts of the cases referred are different and therefore any reliance placed upon them....... + More

---

• 2022 (1) TMI 522 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  
  Quantum of penalty levied under Section 114 (iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 - fraudulent export as goods were grossly undervalued - rejection of declared value - appellant’s alleged offence is that he has submitted the Shipping Bill duly signed by him wherein, the value was declared exorbitantly higher side - confiscation of goods - HELD THAT:- The valuation was not done by the appellant, the appellant have signed the shipping Bill only on the authorisation of his employer firm M/s. MAZDA GLOBAL, the value was taken from the invoice which was prepared and signed by the Proprietor of M/s. MAZDA GLOBAL Smt. Bharti J Gandhi which was sent to the appellant by Shri Amish Gandhi. The appellant being an employee of the M/s. MAZDA GLOBAL has no reason to dispute the valuation as the original valuation was finalized by his employer M/s. MAZDA....... + More

---

• 2022 (1) TMI 521 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  
  Smuggling - yellow material found in the baggage - applicability of proviso contained to Section 129 A (1) of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- The proviso clearly stipulates that no appeal shall lie to the appellate tribunal and the appellate tribunal shall not have jurisdiction to decide any appeal in respect of an order referred to in Clause (b) of Section 129 A (1) if such order relates to goods imported or exported as baggage. In fact, a perusal of the Section 129DD indicates that a revision may lie before the Central Government. As the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to decide the appeal, it stands dismissed.

---

• 2022 (1) TMI 468 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  
  Classification of imported goods - Polyester Bed Cover or Polyester Fabric - classifiable under Custom Tariff Heading 63041930 as declared by the Appellant or under Custom Tariff Heading 54075490 as claimed by revenue? - discharge of burden of prove or not - HELD THAT:- The department to classify the goods as “polyester woven fabric” under CTH 54075490 and to prove that the goods are polyester woven fabric has relied on three textile committee reports reproduced in the impugned order. By perusing the reports dated 28.02.2017 it is clearly mentioned in the column of correct description & Classification of the sample that appropriate HS Code could not be provided due to rupture of yarn in weft while untwisting - Even if we accept the corrected report and all other reports they are all inconclusive and instead of relying upon....... + More

---

• 2022 (1) TMI 467 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  
  Goods imported from Myanmar - teak sliced veneer - exemption from whole customs duty as per Notification No. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011, as per the entry at S.No. 545 thereof - non-submission of Certificate of origin along with the aforesaid Bill of Entry - HELD THAT:- It is observed that important condition of the Notification No. 46/2011 dated 1.6.2011 of in case the certificate of origin along with Bill of Entry was not fulfilled by the appellant at the relevant time. It is observed that the said certificate was produced by the appellant before the Original Adjudicating Authority itself i.e., on 26.2.2019. The Original Authority , despite acknowledging the receipt has failed to give the benefit of said certificate in its order dated 22.8.2019. The request of appellant for re-assessment of duty was pending before the department since ....... + More

---

• 2022 (1) TMI 466 - CESTAT ALLAHABAD
  
  Smuggling - goods /gold is classified under chapter heading 71081300 - import of baggage by a passenger coming from abroad - applicable rate of tax is 12.5% or 35%? - HELD THAT:- It is a case of town seizure, and further there is no evidence of the appellant having entered into India from a foreign country; admittedly, appellant was travelling from Bahraich to Barabanki by bus; thus, it is a case of town seizure; accordingly, it is held that the rate of duty for import of baggage is not applicable, and the duty is payable @ 12.5% for gold, falling under CTH 71081300. The appellant is entitled to refund of the excess amount of duty deposited, alongwith applicable interest, from the date of deposit till the date of refund - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

---

• 2022 (1) TMI 364 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
  
  Request for amendment of EDI shipping bill - delay of 9 to 12 months from date of filing of shipping bills - original authority has declined to amend the shipping bills because the EGM has already been closed and it is not possible to amend the shipping bill thereafter in the EDI system - valid ground to deny amendment under section 149 or not - HELD THAT:- Section 149 states the officer ‘may, in his discretion, permit’ amendments and it does not say the officer shall permit amendment. If the legislative intent was to make amendment a vested right, then there was no need for permission from anyone. Not only is the word used is ‘May’ and not ‘Shall’, but it is followed by the words ‘in his discretion’. The only limitation on the discretion of the officer is the proviso which states that it sh....... + More

---

• 2022 (1) TMI 363 - CESTAT MUMBAI
  
  Valuation of imported goods - loading of 10.5% to the assessable value under rule 10 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Imported Goods) Rules, 2007 - interpolation of extraneous and unverifiable facts - HELD THAT:- The issue in dispute pertains to the three agreements against which payments were to be made to the overseas entity in terms of ‘net sales’ of the final product. According to Learned Counsel, none of the agreements had incorporated condition which would validate the invoking of rule 10 of the said Rules. It was also pointed that they had furnished the value of goods imported from the related supplier as also the value of those from unrelated suppliers and, for each year between 2012-13 and 2015-16, ranged from 44.42% to 45.07% despite which the first appellate authority has, by referring to ₹ 9.80....... + More

---

• 2022 (1) TMI 326 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  
  Interest on delayed refund of excess duty paid - provisional assessments - violation of principles of unjust enrichment - HELD THAT:- There are no doubt whatsoever on the non-applicability of interest for the provisional assessments undertaken before the amendment in Section 18 in 2006. Therefore, to this extent, the impugned orders do not survive and are liable to be set aside. Moreover, it is found that the approach of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is in violation of the principle of judicial discipline. As no stay was granted as on that date against the order of the Tribunal, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) was bound by the decision of the Tribunal. Applicability of bar of unjust enrichment in respect of provisional assessments before 2006 - HELD THAT:- Karnataka High Court in the MANGALORE REFINERY AND PETROCHEMICALS LTD. VERS....... + More

---

• 2022 (1) TMI 221 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  
  Levy of penalty on Customs broker - violation of Regulations 10(q) and 13(12) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 - opportunity of cross-examination not provided - principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The Inquiry Officer, in his Inquiry Report dated 14.10.2020, has extracted the Show Cause Notice to a large extent and the appellant’s reply. What is missing is the requirement under Regulation 17(3) whereby the Inquiry Officer was expected, in the course of inquiry, inter alia, to take such oral evidence as may be relevant. This is because, as contended by the Learned Advocate for the appellant, no opportunity of being heard was ever extended to the appellant by the Inquiry Officer. Further, Regulation 17(4) gives the right of cross-examination to the Customs Broker, but however, in the absence of any notice of heari....... + More

---

• 2022 (1) TMI 220 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
  
  Provisional release of goods - Classification of imported goods - Heavy Melting Scrap ISRI Code 200 to 206 - goods were found to be “old and used CRGO (secondary Cold Rolled Grain Oriented) Sheets/old and used “empty gas cylinder” and “Table Tennis Rackets” - prohibited goods or not - seeking provisional release of goods - HELD THAT:- According to the importer, the goods imported are Heavy Melting Scrap ISRI Code 200-206. The Pre Inspection Certificate issued by the agency “Wize Services FZE‟ has certified the goods to be Heavy Melting Scrap. The Ld. Counsel has furnished photographs of these goods held by department to be CRGO Sheets.He submits that these are end cuttings and used pieced of metals having homogenous holes in all the pieces. There is no expert opinion placed - it is not considered ....... + More

---

• 2022 (1) TMI 172 - CESTAT KOLKATA
  
  Mis-declaration and mis-classification of goods - machinery oil - machinery lubricating oil - to be classified under CTH 27101950 and CTH 27101980 respectively or not - intelligence indicated that the average price of base oil is about US $ 900-1100 per MT whereas the importer in this case has declared a price of US $ 490-500 per MT - appellant sought cross-examination of the chemical examiners which was denied - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- It is found from the impugned order that there is no recording of any cross-examination of the chemical examiners for the test reports. The allegation in the show cause notice as confirmed in the impugned order is that the appellant has misdeclared the nature of goods. The appellant imported base oil and declared it as machinery oil and also claimed wrong classification in ....... + More

---

• 2022 (1) TMI 171 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  
  Denial of interest on refund claim - duty which was prayed to be refunded was paid prior to show cause notice of 2011 was issued (within three months of the relevant refund application) - Section 27(1) of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- When the provisions of Section 27 of Customs Act are applied to the facts of present case it is clear that the duty which was prayed to be refunded was paid prior to show cause notice of 2011 was issued. The order of Original Adjudicating Authority which dropped the impugned demand was passed on 31.08.2018 and application praying for refund was filed on 1.10.2018. The refund in this case was admittedly sanctioned on 22.10.2018. Thus it is clear that refund of Customs duty paid was sanctioned within one month of the application seeking that refund. There is no infirmity in the Order under challenge where in....... + More

---

• 2022 (1) TMI 135 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  
  Jurisdiction - power of Additional Director General of DRI to issue SCN - section 28(4) of Customs Act, 1962 - penalty under section 114, 114A and 114 AA of Customs Act - HELD THAT:- In M/S CANON INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS [2021 (3) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT], the Hon’ble Supreme Course has held that appeals must fail as the show cause notice(s) in the present cases was also issued by Additional Director General (ADG), Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), who is not a proper officer within the meaning of Section 28 (4) read with Section 2(34) of the Customs Act, 1962. Penalties were imposed under section 114, 114A and 114 AA of Customs Act - in the impugned order and the SCN for confiscation of goods or imposition of penalties is issued under section 124 of the Customs and not under Section 28 - HELD TH....... + More

---

• 2022 (1) TMI 115 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  
  Revocation of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - levy of penalty - three exporters finding to be non-existent - document to support the allegation that the other exporters existed or not - case of the Revenue is that since these firms were found to be not functioning from the registered premises when physically verified by the Departmental officers, they never existed in the first place and it was the obligation of the appellant as a Customs Broker to “verify correctness of Importer Exporter Code (IEC) number - CBIC Circular no. 9/2010-Customs dated 8.4.2010 - HELD THAT:- The Customs Broker is not Omniscient and Omnipotent. The responsibility of the Customs Broker under Regulation 10(n) does not extend to ensuring that all the documents issued by various officers of various departments are issued correctly. Th....... + More

---

• 2022 (1) TMI 114 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
  
  Rejection of request for provisional release of the seized goods - high end wrist watches - prohibited goods or not - Section 110A of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- Discretion is cast upon the adjudicating authority under section 110A of the Customs Act while deciding an application filed for provisional release of the goods and in P. PANDITHURAI VERSUS THE JOINT COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (ADJUDICATION) , O/O. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, TRICHY s[2020 (3) TMI 859 - MADRAS HIGH COURT], the Madras High Court observed that such discretion must be exercised in a manner known to law and that an opportunity of being heard is also required to be given. In the present case, a search had been carried out at the residential premises of the employees of M/s. Johnson Watch Co. Pvt. Ltd. on 29.10.2012 and also at its various showrooms and the residence ....... + More

---