|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Tribunal - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 22516 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 (4) TMI 575 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Advance Authorization scheme - Export of goods under Assorted Utensils - Table Kitchen articles made from non-magnetic stainless steel grade - 201, of relevant thickness” and country of destination being Gambia - It appeared to Revenue that the goods under export are not as per the conditions of the Advance license - HELD THAT:- The impugned order relates to the mis-use of Advance license procedure. Further, in view of the redemption certificate(s) issued by the Ministry of Commerce in respect of the two Advance Licences in question, certifying that the appellant have discharged their obligation, the issue no longer survives. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
- 2021 (4) TMI 571 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Valuation of imported goods - small printer part, big printer part and data cable - redetermination of value based on contemporaneous import data of the goods that were actually imported - SCN waived by importer itself - Confiscation of goods - redemption fine and penalty - HELD THAT:- The issue of re-determination of the duty under Section 17 when the importer gives in writing that he does not want the show cause notice and accepts the re-determination was decided by this Bench and the batch of appeals in the case of Commissioner of Customs versus Hanuman Prasad & Sons [2020 (12) TMI 1092 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] where it was held that The Commissioner (Appeals) completely failed to advert to the crucial aspect that the importers had themselves accepted the enhanced value. The Commissioner (Appeals) in fact, proceeded to examine the matte....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 525 - CESTAT CHANDIGARH
Territorial Jurisdiction - Levy of penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - import of confectionery items from Dubai - Allegation of under valuation by DRI - error in not relying on th decision of Larger Bench of this Tribunal in M/S SEVILLE PRODUCTS LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI [2021 (3) TMI 775 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] - appellant is located in Dubai, outside of India and having no office in India - HELD THAT:- It was inquired from the ld. A.R. about the decision of the Larger Bench on this issue by this Tribunal passed in 2021. The ld. A.R. fairly accepted that he is not aware of the decision. It is very unfortunate that the departmental officers appearing before this Court are not updated with the latest judgments of this Tribunal. As there is a decision of the Division Bench of this Tribunal which is against the ....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 492 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Import of prohibited goods - Decalcified Fish scale for Collagen (Fish Protein) - Revenue found the item to contain pathogenic Salmonella on testing and directed the importer to move the cargo back to Customs jurisdiction - re-export of goods allowed subject to payment of redemption fine and penalty - HELD THAT:- The Commissioner(Appeals) in the impugned order has specifically allowed the benefit to the appellant under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962 for reexport of goods as the governing factors under Section 74 for reexport of goods imported have not been violated by the appellant - when the goods allowed to be reexported by the Commissioner(Appeals), then the imposition of redemption fine and penalty is not sustainable in view of the various decisions relied upon by the appellant. Tribunal in the case of Kenda Farben India Pvt. Ltd....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 429 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Refund the excess duty paid - duty paid under protest - rejection of refund on the ground that it is beyond one year when computed from the date of reassessment of the bills of entry - Time limitation - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the appellant has paid excess duty of ₹ 29,57,931/- after reassessment of the bills of entry by extending the benefit of Notification No. 12/2012-CE. The refund has been rejected on the ground that it is barred by limitation - When the appellant has approached the higher forum aggrieved by the rejection of the notification benefit, it is sufficiently implied that the duty has been paid under protest. The Tribunal in the case of BAYSHORE GLASS TRADING PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUS., KOLKATA [2002 (7) TMI 161 - CEGAT, KOLKATA] has held that when appeal is filed against the assessment of the b....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 401 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Imposition of penalty on Customs Broker - customs broker had not verified KYC and has violated Regulation 10(n) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations (CBLR), 2018 - HELD THAT:- A show cause notice has to be issued within 90 days from the date of receipt of the offence report. In the present case, the copy of the order passed by the adjudicating authority at Mumbai Customs is dated 29.05.2019. The same was communicated to Chennai Customs. If the said order is considered as offence report, show cause notice ought to have been issued on or before 28.08.2019. In the present case the show cause notice is dated 26.11.2019. Thus there is delay in issuing the show cause notice which is clear violation of Regulation 17(1) of CBLR 2018. The jurisdictional High Court in the case of M/S. BHUVAN SHIPPING SERVICES VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS,....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 386 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Interest on delayed Refund of SAD - case of Revenue is that the necessary documents were filed only on 16.02.2019 and from such date the refund has been granted within 3 months and therefore no interest is liable to be paid to the appellant - HELD THAT:- It is seen that refund claims were filed by the appellant in March 2014 and April 2014. The same has been sanctioned only on 10.06.2019. The department was always a party to the litigation before Commissioner (Appeals) as well as the Tribunal. When the matter was agitated by the appellant for denial of refund alleging that appellant has not complied with condition 2(b) of the notification, the Department had sufficient knowledge about the proceedings as well as the order passed by the Tribunal. Even after the order passed by the Tribunal, the department has waited for 2 years to sanction ....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 350 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Validity of Service of SCN - condition precedent for giving jurisdiction to the Adjudicating Authority to pass an order - Section 153 of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- In the present case inspite of opportunity given, Revenue failed to produce the proof of delivery of the show cause notice. Further, from perusal of the order-in-original, it is found that the Adjudicating Authority have not recorded satisfaction of service of show cause notice and have proceeded to pass the ex-parte order-in-original, which is held to be a nullity in the eyes of law. Substituted service by way of affixation on the notice board of the Department is by way of last resort. In the facts of the present case, it is found that without identifying, the noticee, nor taking any reasonable measures of any substituted service as mentioned in clause (d) and (e) of Secti....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 303 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Refund of Additional Customs Duty - refund rejected on the ground that the claimant is not the importer of the goods - benefit of N/N. 102/2007-Cus. - HELD THAT:- It can be seen that it is for the importer to file refund claim. The definition of “importer” as it stood prior to 2017 has been referred to by Ld. Counsel for appellant. From the definition, it can be seen that it is an inclusive definition wherein the importer includes any owner or person holding himself out to be the importer. The appellant has entered into slump sale agreement with Doosan Infracore India Pvt.Ltd. on 1.4.2015 for sale of Excavator Division. In the agreement it is stated that all assets and properties of the seller owned or used by the seller in connection with business would fall within “acquired assets” by the appellant herein. It is ....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 215 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Release of seized goods - Drones - clearance of the goods was denied based upon DGFT Notification No.30/2015-2020 dated 8.11.1990 and WPC licence for the drones - Commissioner (Appeals) ordered for release of goods under bond directing to produce the necessary licence and permission from the appropriate authorities within a period of six months from the date of release of the goods. - HELD THAT:- It is noted that the goods were specifically imported for meeting the requirements during the pandemic. Drones were intended to be used for monitoring the public as to whether there is violation of the restrictions for travel and gathering of people. It is also seen from the documents that drones were intended for supply only for the police department and only for the purpose of use during the pandemic. The department has issued an end-user certi....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 124 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Refund of SAD - Failure to produce any documentary evidence in support of the claim that imported goods were of the description as mentioned in the Notification - provisions exist in the SEZ Act for grant of refund, or not - Unjust enrichment - penalty - HELD THAT:- The findings of Commissioner (Appeals) are not correct as under Section 30 of the SEZ Act 2005, goods removed from SEZ to DTA are chargeable to customs duties. Hence, such excess duty paid as Customs duty can only be claimed as Refund under section 27 of Customs Act 1962. Customs authorities have inherent powers under Customs Act 1962 to process the Refunds. Accordingly, this Tribunal vide final orders dated 05- 10-2015 and 16-08-2016, has directed to process refund claims under Customs Act 1962. Provisions exist in the SEZ Act for grant of refund, or not - HELD THAT:- The vie....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 123 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Classification of imported goods - steel round bars - to be classified under Customs Tariff heading 72284000 of Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or under Customs Tariff Heading 72284000 - argument of the appellant is based on the process of manufacture - Benefit of N/N. 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 (Serial No. 207) - HELD THAT:- From Chapter Note (ij) of Chapter 72, it is seen that only product with solid section are classifiable as semifinished products. The products which are not of solid section cannot be classified as semifinished products. The Revenue is seeking to classify the product as hollow profile. The appellant have argued that the product tubes and pipes and hollow profiles are products made out of the process of extrusion, whereas the product imported by the appellant is a forged product, which has been proof machine. The argument o....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 118 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - time limitation - dismissed for the reason that the appeal had been filed even beyond the permissible time limit contemplated under section 128 of the Customs Act 1962 - HELD THAT:- Section 35B of the Central Excise Act 1944, on which reliance has been placed in the aforesaid decision by the learned Member deals with Appeals to the Appellate Tribunal. It is true that section 35B does not contain a provision similar to section 35, wherein it is provided that an appeal has to be filed within 60 days from the date of the communication of the order but the Commissioner (Appeals) may, if he is satisfied that the appellant is provided by sufficient cause from presenting the appeal within the aforesaid period of sixty days, allow it to be presented within a further period of sixty days. Section 35 of the E....... + More
- 2021 (4) TMI 97 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Maintainability of pre-deposit - Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- During the course of investigation, the appellant has already deposited ₹ 3,65,641/- against the total demand of ₹ 13,63,402/-, which in our view is sufficient to hear the appeal. Since the learned Commissioner (Appeals) has not heard the matter on merit, we remand the matter to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the issue on merit without insisting any further pre-deposit in the matter. All issues are kept open. A reasonable opportunity of hearing be extended to the appellant before deciding the appeal on merit. Appeals are allowed by way of remand.
- 2021 (3) TMI 1205 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Reduction in quantum of redemption fine and penalty - Smuggling - Gold Bar - Revenue entertained a doubt that the appellant had improperly imported gold into India - HELD THAT:- It is interesting to note that there is no explanation on the cut pieces of 100 gms foreign marked gold bar with the marking “Cambi, Suisse 100 gm Gold 999.9” ending with last five digits of Sl.No. 09053” that was retrieved from Ryobi brand 6” Orbittal Buffer car cleaning machine. There is also no rebuttal on maintaining a secret chamber and a hot furnace inside nor has he disputed the availability of dismantled power tools of buffer car cleaning machine, etc. More interestingly, the appellant has nowhere claimed, rather has not even admitted that he is an authorised/license holder/goldsmith to carry out the job of melting gold pieces and c....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 1204 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Reduction in quantum of penalty - Smuggling - Gold - defence of appellants is the retraction statement of these appellants wherein they have inter alia mentioned that the ‘Officers searched their Workshop in Ayanavaram when they were doing their job with regard to melting of the Gold Pieces converting to Gold Rings which was given by the customers - HELD THAT:- The retraction statement itself hints that they were aware/conscious of what job they were carrying on; the very fact that they were involved in melting gold of the alleged huge quantity cumulatively points to the modus operandi in converting smuggled gold bar into crude gold. In the case of their employer also, Shri Alaudeen has nowhere furnished or even offered to furnish any registration for having engaged in the job of the nature they were involved in, nor has he come for....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 1203 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - appeal has been filed after lapse of 113 days from the date of communication of the order - rejection of appeal on the ground of time limitation - restriction provided under first proviso to sub-clause (a) of clause (1) to Section 129A of the Customs Act, 1962 - Smuggling - Cigarettes - Saffron - absolute confiscation - penalty - HELD THAT:- As per the above proviso, no appeal would lie before the Tribunal in respect of any order passed by Commissioner (Appeals) if such order relates to any goods imported or exported as baggage. In the present case, apart from confiscating the goods in the baggage, there is also an issue of smuggling of gold. Further, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) does not touch the merits of the case and is confined to the time-bar aspect in filing the appeal. So i....... + More
- 2021 (3) TMI 1190 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Valuation of imported goods - Laptops - rejection of declared value - value rejected merely based on NIDB data - HELD THAT:- It clearly transpires that not only is the order passed by the adjudicating authority a very cryptic order but even otherwise opportunity was not provided to the appellant to file a detailed reply. The appellant had expressed inability to file a detailed reply because the documents, on the basis of which the declared value indicated in the 14 bills of entry was rejected, was not provided. It is, therefore, a fit care case which should be recommended to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order. The relevant documents shall be provided to the appellant within three weeks from today. The appellant shall file a reply within three weeks thereafter and the adjudicating authority shall pass a reasoned order within three weeks thereafter - Appeal allowed by way of remand.
- 2021 (3) TMI 1167 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Levy of penal charges for late presentation of Bill-of-Entry - HELD THAT:- This has considered similar issue in the case of M/S. BLUELEAF TRADING COMPANY VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF G.S.T. & CENTRAL EXCISE [2019 (5) TMI 672 - CESTAT CHENNAI] where it was held that Appellant is clearly not the first importer, there is request for amendment in IGM on record, allowed by the Revenue after collecting requisite fees and these are clearly post-import developments. The subsequent developments, were perhaps necessitated because of the goods being perishable. Clearly, no mala fide is found in the above developments by the Revenue and therefore, it can be safely assumed that the Revenue was otherwise satisfied with ‘sufficient cause’. Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
- 2021 (3) TMI 1166 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Levy of penal charges for late presentation of Bill-of-Entry - HELD THAT:- This has considered similar issue in the case of M/S. BLUELEAF TRADING COMPANY VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF G.S.T. & CENTRAL EXCISE [2019 (5) TMI 672 - CESTAT CHENNAI] where it was held that Appellant is clearly not the first importer, there is request for amendment in IGM on record, allowed by the Revenue after collecting requisite fees and these are clearly post-import developments. The subsequent developments, were perhaps necessitated because of the goods being perishable. Clearly, no mala fide is found in the above developments by the Revenue and therefore, it can be safely assumed that the Revenue was otherwise satisfied with ‘sufficient cause’. Demand set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
........
|
