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 Other
Citation	--Year-- 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 21899 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.

• 2020 (1) TMI 949
  
  Imposition of penalty on CHA u/s 112(1)/(b) of the Customs Act - misdeclaration of quantum of imported goods - Synthetic Diamond Powder - allegation that the valuation of Synthetic Diamond Powder is based on the unit of ‘carats’, thus by declaring less number of carats, the importer had declared only 1/5th of the quantity and thus undervalued the consignment to the extent of 80% of the quantity declared in the aforesaid two Bills of Entry. HELD THAT:- There is no allegation of any connivance on the part of the appellant-CHA with the importer. Further, in the statement recorded the appellant-CHA have stated that it was mistake on his part but he was not knowing about the no. of carats in 1 Kg., but the Bs/E were filed as per Carats shown in Invoices and same were appraised by the group as such and he never questioned about this....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 948
  
  Classification of imported goods - whether the Palm Kernel Acid Oil or Palm Kernel Fatty Acid - challenge to valuation adopted by the adjudicating authority for the imported consignment - re-test of sample denied - HELD THAT:- There is considerable force in the submission made by the learned Advocate regarding denial of the re-test of the product imported - also, the test report has not indicated the various chemical parameters prescribed for the test of the imported goods in terms of fatty acid contents moisture and impurities and iodine and saponification value. The appellant has produced the test report from the supplier of the goods which clearly indicated that the imported consignment is having the characteristics of Palm Kernel Acid Oil and not Palm Kernel Fatty Acid, as held by the Revenue based on the CRCL report - Further, the va....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 947
  
  Confiscation - imposition of redemption fine and penalty - classification of goods - heavy melting scrap - legality of reports of the Chartered Engineers for change of classification - Whether the Chartered Engineer report is acceptable in the facts and circumstances of the case or not? - HELD THAT:- The Chartered Engineer who has examined the goods are not metallurgical engineer and the reports were based on visual examination without any market inquiry, therefore, the reports provided by the Chartered Engineers are not acceptable - as Chartered Engineers who were not metallurgical engineer and given the reports without market survey on visual examination cannot be relied upon. Therefore, the reports given by the Chartered Engineers are not acceptable for assessment of the bills of entry in question. Whether the classification of the imp....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 946
  
  Revocation of CHA license - imposition of penalty - it was alleged that the appellant was having the knowledge about the imported consignment to be mis-declared with respect to its description and value - section 11E of CBLR, 2013 - HELD THAT:- The charge against the appellant is that they have not personally verified the existence of the importer and also failed to properly verify IFC Code and the actual person behind this import. Not only that, the appellant has got the two similar consignments in past. The SCN issued to the appellant does not explain as to which of the specific provisions of Section 11E has been violated by the appellant. However, in the SCN it is mentioned that the appellant failed in its duty of customs broker by not advising his client to comply with the provision of the Customs Act and to verify antecedent of impor....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 905
  
  Levy of penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act - Penalty on CEO for abetment - misdeclaration of transaction value as well as retail sales price (RSP) of confectionary items - HELD THAT:- The issue of jurisdiction of Customs Act and its application to the appellant is primarily challenged in the present appeal, besides the legality of the Order of the Commissioner. Though the issue appears to be small it has wide ramifications. No Municipal law can ever be extended beyond the territorial boundaries of a country including its continental self and exclusive economic zone, whether or not there is express provision in the Act or statute to stretch the same beyond the country’s territory since the same would amount to encroachment upon the territorial authority of other State. It is therefore, defined in the Statute of the country that th....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 840
  
  Benefit of Indirect Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016 - a discharge certificate was issued by the designated authority accepting the payment from the declarant as full and final settlement of the amounts due from the declarant - appeal were pending before Commissioner (Appeals) - Misdeclaration of imported goods - imported Shredded Stainless Steel Scrap Grade 304 - HELD THAT:- There is no dispute that the appellant filed a declaration before the authorized officer in terms of the Indirect Tax Dispute Resolution Scheme, 2016. In terms of the provisions of Section 214, an assessee is required to make a declaration before the designated authority. The said declaration has to be acknowledged and in terms of sub-section 4 of the said section, on receipt of proof of payment of tax interest and penalty under sub-section 3, the designated autho....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 813
  
  Condonation of delay of 87 days in filing the appeals before the Tribunal - HELD THAT:- The delay is condoned. Prayer for withdrawal of appeal - HELD THAT:- The prayer of the Revenue is allowed and the appeals are dismissed as withdrawn.

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 766
  
  Import of new aircraft - Benefit of N/N. 21/2002-cus dated 1.3.2002 as amended - Department got intelligence that the said aircraft had been imported for private use by the appellant under the guise of non scheduled operator (passenger permit) - Whether the appellant herein has violated condition no. 104 (under sl. No. 347 N) of notification no. 21/2002-Cus as amended by notification no. 61/2007-Cus while importing an aircraft vide B/E No. 218981 dated 21.05.2007 by not complying with the undertaking as was given to DGCA at the time of said import? HELD THAT:- The scheduled as well as non scheduled air transport services firm (whether for passenger or charter) are open to use by the members of public and as such stands distinguished from what can be called as private use of the aircraft. The another thing which distinguishes scheduled air....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 742
  
  Exemption from Customs Duty on Copper Concentrate to the extent of duty on the value of Gold and Silver contained in such Copper Concentrate - Denial of the benefit of N/N. 24/2011-Cus dated 01.03.2011 - denial of benefit of notification on the ground that the Assay Certificate of the Mining Company submitted at the time of provisional assessment is not co-relatable with the import documents submitted by the appellant. HELD THAT:- The appellants have produced a provisional assay certificate from the mining Company at the time of import. They have finalized the price with the supplier who is not a mine - Tribunal in the appellants own case HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD., COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS-AHMEDABAD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS-AHMEDABAD, HINDALCO INDUSTRIES LTD. [2015 (3) TMI 948 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] has held that For a feasible solution ....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 717
  
  Refund of differential duty - Benefit of N/N. 69/2011-Cus dated 29.07.2011 - rejection on the ground that the bill of entry has not been challenged - HELD THAT:- It is not in dispute that the appellant was eligible for the exemption notification but they have not claimed the same in the bill of entry and paid excess duty. Thereafter, they filed the refund claim without challenging the bills of entry under which the duty was paid. It has now been decided by the Larger bench of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of ITC LIMITED VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, KOLKATA -IV [2019 (9) TMI 802 - SUPREME COURT] that no refund can be claimed once assessment is finalised without challenging the assessment even if such assessment was done under self assessment procedure. Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 681
  
  Valuation of imported goods - PVC Flex Sheet - rejection of declared value - reasons for rejecting the value declared by the appellant not given, the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority to pass speaking order for enhancing the value - HELD THAT:- The transaction value has been rejected without according sufficient reasons. Further, on perusal of the discussions and findings of the original authority, the department has made comparison of the contemporaneous imports of which description of the goods do not match with the goods that are imported by the appellant. The brand name of the goods as well as the specification are different. Comparison of the value of such goods which are different from the goods imported by the appellant and enhancement thereon is against the provisions of law. The enhancement of value cannot sustain - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 643
  
  Exemption from Anti-Dumping duty - Benefit of N/N. 95/2006-Cus. dt. 08/09/2006 - who is manufacturer of goods - whole case of the Department is that during the course of examination of the goods prior to the clearance of the goods indicated the manufacturer to be M/s.Nanhai Shangyuan Construction Ceramic Co. Ltd. PRC in place of M/s. Foshan Lungo Ceramics Co. Ltd. as appearing in the invoice. HELD THAT:- Learned Commissioner(Appeals) has not given any findings on the examination report except saying that as per appellants, the examination report was not given at the time of clearance - Further, it is also not forthcoming as to why in the existence of the examination report, clearance was allowed by the Customs authorities; if the country of origin certificate has been challenged through proper verification procedure and if any action has ....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 642
  
  Classification of imported goods - nature of scrap - Shredded Aluminium 6063 Extrusion Scrap “Tread” - As against declaration of shredded Aluminium scrap the goods found appeared to be remnant ends of ingots/ billets obtained during the extrusion process - HELD THAT:- We have perused the panchnama dated 19.02.2009, wherein the goods have been described as “The cargo was mainly consisted of oval and cylindrical pieces of aluminium alloy. The thickness of the said pieces varied from approximately 2” to 21/4’ (feet) and the diameter varied from 6” (inches) to 1’ (feet).” From the examination conducted as per the above said panchnama, we have no hesitation in holding that the goods imported goods were not “shredded aluminium scrap” as declared by the appellants. We agree with the fin....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 597
  
  Classification of imported goods - clarion brand speakers - whether classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading No. 851822/851829 or under under Chapter Heading 8519/8527? - benefit of N/N. 49/2008-CX(NT) Dated 24.12.2008 at Sl. No. 90, 94 and 96 - HELD THAT:- The issue in dispute is in these appeals are regarding classification of the goods imported by the Appellant No. 1 which has been described has Multi Media Speaker classifiable under Customs Tariff Heading No. 8518200 dated 16.04.2013 and thereafter under Heading 85198990, 8527990 and 85272900. The DRI has, however, not accepted the classification declared by the Appellant and came to the conclusion that the imported goods are rightly classified under Chapter Heading 85198100 leviable to CVD in terms of Section 4A of Central Excise Act, 1944 of MRP/RSP basis that attracted the provisi....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 596
  
  Revocation of CHA licence - forfeiture of security deposit - undervaluation of imported goods - HELD THAT:- The penalty of revocation imposed against the appellant is disproportionately harsh in the context of the alleged quantum of undervaluation. The delay on the part of the licensing authority in proceeding against the licensee for more than 10 years and, that too, for this minor dereliction, if any, does not appear warranted. The allegation against the importer was that of undervaluation. There is no allegation of the appellant having been involved in the process of negotiations, or dealings, with the shipper. There is no evidence, except the statement said to have been recorded from a former Director of the appellant-company, that the antecedents were not verified. While the Director would not have been concerned with such verificati....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 595
  
  Classification of imported goods - imports of fuel pump unit assembly - whether classified under the tariff item 8409-91-99 of first schedule to Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or otherwise? - Department noticed that the appellant has wrongly classified the goods and that Rule 126 of General Rules of Interpretation (GIR) of harmonized system for classification of goods have not been followed - benefit of N//N. 85/2004-CUS dated 31.08.2004 - time limitation. HELD THAT:- No doubt, the fuel pump unit assembly of the appellant is meant to be used with the spark ignition internal combustion engine but admittedly it is such part which is rather a pump. It is the admission of the appellant that the impugned goods are responsible for pumping fuel into cylinders of an engine of two-wheelers while offering, control over the amount of fuel pumped into the ....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 549
  
  Smuggling goods to Nepal - Release of seized goods - seizure of misc. cloth items - violation of the provisions of Sections 7,11, and 50 of the Customs Act, 1962 - allegation that the occupants of the vehicles failed to produce any documentary evidence for legal possession of the goods - HELD THAT:- Since the impugned seized goods are not notified under Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962, the burden of proof is on the department - In the instant case, the department appears to have failed to provide the circumstantial evidence to prove the attempt of illegal export. The Adjudicating Authority appears to have rightly cited the cases of Hon’ble Patna High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Patna Vs. Manish Kakrania [2012 (5) TMI 722 - PATNA HIGH COURT] wherein the Hon’ble High Court has held that in cases of smuggling t....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 489
  
  Revocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - no physical interaction with the exporter was made - smuggling of Red Sanders - export consignment which was cleared by the appellant through the impugned Shipping Bill which pertained to HB wires contained logs of Red Sanders, which is banned for export in terms of export and import policy - violation of provisions of Section 11A, 11 (d), 11 (1), 11 (n) of CBLR - HELD THAT:- The appellant has not obtained the job of clearance of export consignment directly through exporter M/s. Panel Pin Manufacturing, but through series of intermediary which included manipulation of Red Sander smuggling. Though the necessary verification about such KYC etc., was conducted by the appellant, however, no physical interaction with the exporter was made. This in itself will not be a major infractio....... + More

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 488
  
  Smuggling - Betel Nuts - Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962 - burden to prove - HELD THAT:- Betel nuts are not notified items under Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962, hence the onus to prove that the same was of foreign origin and too smuggled lies solely on the Revenue. Foreign origin have been admitted by the Appellant and have produced the supporting documents, which are found to be correct - Betel nuts are not notified goods, and the onus was discharged by Appellant by producing the supporting documents. There could be no mens rea for smuggling as the duty payable was only 5% under Indo Myanmar Trade under Notification 09/1995-Customs. Betel nut was also importable at NIL rate of duty Notification 96/08-Customs and 09/2009-Customs, under Scheme of Duty Free, Quota Free Import from Least Developed Country to which Myanmar belong. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

---

• 2020 (1) TMI 483
  
  Smuggling - Gold Bullion - gold moved for the purpose of melting/re-melting - confiscation on reasonable belief that the goods were illegally imported into India through unauthorized route without any valid documents - HELD THAT:- The adjudicating authority has taken the view that the claim of lawful acquisition of the subject gold by M/s. Anjani Gold Private Limited, dealing with in Gold Bullion for years and handing over gold of such high value to a person without any written agreement is surprising and unacceptable. Non-mentioning of marks brand as found on two gold biscuits in the Tax Invoice and holding the subject gold for about three months in a stock was observed as deceitful attempt to salvage the seized gold. Learned Commissioner in passing the impugned order did not find that the burden of proof as envisaged under Section 123 o....... + More

---