Home Case Index All Cases Customs 2015 2015 2015 (9) Customs - 2015 (9) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property 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 Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 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 - Case Laws

Showing 121 to 140 of 182 Records

• 2015 (9) TMI 512 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Re-assessment of Bills of entry – CVD mistakenly paid at 10% instead of 6% – Petitioner from time to time imported Reverse Osmosis (RO) membrane element for household type filters – Petitioner claims that, at import stage Counter Veiling Duty (CVD) was paid; though mistakenly at rate of 10% – Assertion of petitioner is that, notification had been issued by respondents, whereby CVD, on RO membrane, for household type filters, had been reduced to 6% – Petitioner seeks direction for reassessment of 7 bills of entries – Held that:- Court inclined to direct respondents to dispose of representations of petitioners –Needful will be done by respondents as expeditiously as possible – Petition disposed of.

  ---

• 2015 (9) TMI 511 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Utilisation of Advance Licensing Scheme – Matter Remanded back for De-Novo consideration - Tribunal vide impugned order remanded matter back to Commissioner for denovo consideration, and to re-¬adjudicate show cause notice in its entirety – Whether tribunal was justified in remanding matter back for de-novo consideration – Held that:- Tribunal clearly concluded issue that activity of respondent assessee could be termed as “manufacture” – Only limited issue which was being dealt with by Tribunal is whether assessee has produced documents to satisfy that imported materials under Advance Licensing Scheme have been correctly utilised as per terms and conditions of scheme read with relevant notifications – Tribunal noticed in order under Appeal that adjudicating authority did travel beyond its earlier direction – Therefore, present court of opinion that Appeal does not raise any substantial question of law – Decided against revenue.

  ---

• 2015 (9) TMI 510 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Penalty imposed for improper importation of goods - Withdrawal of penalty - Whether Tribunal is right in law in setting aside penalty imposed under Section 112(2) of Customs Act, 1962 – Held that:- Once assessee is recognized as sole proprietorship concern, then, imposition of penalty on firm/concern or proprietorship concern and sole proprietor separately was not permissible in given facts and circumstances – Therefore, tribunal was justified in setting aside penalty upon sole proprietor-respondent while affirming penalty imposed upon company - In these state of affairs, we do not see that appeal raises any substantial question of law – Appeal dismissed – Decided against revenue.

  ---

• 2015 (9) TMI 509 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Imposition of Pre-deposit – Rejection of Waiver – Whether Tribunal was justified in directing Appellant to deposit amount as pre-deposit when appellant’s goods were still lying under control of Revenue and rejecting total waiver of pre-deposit – Held that:- Authority rejected value declared in bill of entry and re-determined value under Section 28(4) of Customs Act, 1962 – Goods valued at ₹ 33.5 lakhs were directed to be confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine – Taking into consideration fact that appellant had already paid sum and appellant undertook not to clear goods till disposal of appeal, it was appropriate to direct deposit further sum of ₹ 50,000/- instead of ₹ 2,00,000/- as directed by Tribunal – Decided partly in favour of Assesse.

  ---

• 2015 (9) TMI 482 - CESTAT CHENNAI
  

  Mis-declaration of Fabric – Waiver of pre-deposit of penalty – Applicant attempted to export fabrics by mis-declaration of goods to avail undue DEPB benefits – Applications are filed for waiver of pre-deposit of penalty – Held that:- Applicants were directly involved in claiming undue DEPB benefits – Prima facie, penalties are impossible on applicants – Therefore, all applicants are directed to make pre-deposit within period of four weeks and report compliance – Upon deposit of said amount, pre-deposit of balance amount of penalties would be waived and its recovery stayed till disposal of appeals – Decided against applicants.

  ---

• 2015 (9) TMI 458 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Denial of benefit of Exemption Notification No. 34/98-Cus – Pig hair bristles that were imported were sold against which revenue issued show cause notice stating that since these pig hair bristles were sold without any sales tax been paid thereon, benefit of Exemption Notification would not be available to importer – Commissioner, concluded that Exemption Notification exempting pig hair bristles from tax would amount to case where no tax is chargeable on sale of goods and therefore, benefit of said Notification would not be available to importer – Tribunal vide impugned order reversed order of commissioner – Held that:- on reading of Sections 3 and 7 of Delhi Sales Tax Act, 1975, it becomes clear, that so far as imported item, viz., pig bristles is concerned, no sales tax, in fact, is charged on same – Since no tax is chargeable on sale of such goods, said Exemption Notification will therefore, not apply – We, accordingly, set aside judgment of tribunal and restore Commissioners’ order – Appeal disposed of.

  ---

• 2015 (9) TMI 457 - SC ORDER
  

  Valuation of goods - Inclusion of lumpsum trademark fee and lumpsum royalty for technical knowhow - It was held that lump sum payments for trade mark usage and royalty for technical know-how is condition of sale for purchase of raw-materials from related foreign entities and therefore, it should be added on proportionate basis to value of goods imported - Tribunal vide impugned order [2015 (2) TMI 646 - CESTAT MUMBAI] set aside on basis that same is unsustainable in law - Admittedly there is delay of 209 days in filing instant appeal - After hearing parties Suprecourt is of opinion that no good ground found to interfere with judgment and order passed by Tribunal - Accordingly, Appeal is dismissed both on ground of delay as well as on merits.

  ---

• 2015 (9) TMI 456 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Misuse of Advance license – Goods diverted to domestic market – Appellant and his associates were allegedly misusing license received under Advance License Scheme and were evading customs duty on imported goods by diverting goods imported duty free under license into local market without utilizing them for intended purpose – Show cause notice was issued to appellant along with other persons proposing to confiscate goods, demand customs duty and levy penalty – Held that:- Even though personal hearing was granted twice to appellant, appellant did not appear before Authorities, hence no error found in order of Tribunal ordering pre-deposit – Adjudicating Authority has considered involvement of appellant in illegal import of goods by indulging in act of misusing advance licence and evading customs duty on imported goods – Evidence available indicates knowledge and involvement of appellant in import of goods, which established role of appellant – Therefore, we find no justification in modifying order passed by Tribunal – Order of Tribunal stands confirmed – Decided against Appellant.

  ---

• 2015 (9) TMI 455 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Misclassification due to suppression of facts – Imposition of penalty – Settlement Commission vide order imposed penalty upon on petitioner – Main issue was of misclassification arising due to alleged suppression of facts regarding source of insoluble sulphur crystex HB OT 20 by petitioners – Held that:- if letter, informing source of elemental sulphur, issued from overseas supplier was required so as to term dispute as not genuine or bonafide, that aspect has not been at all considered by Commission – Commission must render finding when it is pointed out that petitioners are liable to penal action as proposed in show cause notice – Commission ought to be aware of ramifications of imposing penalty – Commission failed to apply its mind to this important aspect of matter and court constrained to set aside order passed by Commission to this limited extent – As result petition succeed – Commission's order to extent it imposes penalties on petitioner set aside – Matters sent back to Commission to examine whether it can impose penalties on parties and if it can in law whether there are circumstances justifying such imposition – Commission to re-examine this aspect and uninfluenced by its earlier order – Petition disposed of.

  ---

• 2015 (9) TMI 454 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Release of Consignment - import of Canola Oil – Labels not in conformity with Packaging and Labelling Regulations – In past petitioner was permitted to import Canola Oil and no objection was taken by respondent No.1, but consignments imported in January and June, 2014 was rejected on ground that label does not conform to Packaging and Labelling Regulations under Clause 2.2.2(2), which was published on respondent-1 website – Held that:- label prima facie appears to be in complete conformity with clause – Therefore, action of rejecting said consignments is absolutely arbitrary – Pertinent to note that Food Authority, after having rejected consignment of January, had cleared consignment of same product in April and thereafter again in June consignment of same product was rejected – Action of Food Authority, therefore, is arbitrary and is violative of Article 14 of Constitution of India – Food Authority to clear consignments which have been detained by them, subject to compliance of provisions of other relevant Act, Rules and Regulations – Decided in favour of Assesse.

  ---

• 2015 (9) TMI 453 - CESTAT BANGALORE
  

  Revocation of Customs Broker Licence - offence relating to smuggling of Red Sanders - whether revocation of licence of the customs broker, the appellant is correct considering the role of the appellant broker in clandestine export of Red sanders. - Held that:- The three actions of the appellant of failing to advice the client regarding affix of bottle seal no., obtaining dock permits and obtaining the second bottle seal have been taken together to come to the conclusion that the omissions of the appellant cannot be treated as innocent acts of omission but a series of acts which taken together become acts of commission on the part of customs broker to facilitate the smuggling of prohibited red sanders.

  Whether the omission on the part of Broker is deliberate - Held that:- Therefore even though not advising the client is an omission on the part of the appellant, it cannot be said that this action was one of the series of acts of the appellant to facilitate smuggling of red sanders. In fact the opposite would have been done if the intention was to facilitate smuggling of red sanders as observed by us earlier. The same applies for obtaining dock permit also.

  The very fact that appellant simply obtained the dock permits and ignored the fact that the name was different gives a feeling that they may not be actively involved in smuggling because if they were involved they would have advised the client that this could create a problem and they would have changed the transporter or the truck or found some other way. There is no evidence of collusion at the port gate. The fact that they simply obtained the dock permits, in our opinion, cannot mean that it shows malafide intention.

  The punishment of revocation of licence is disproportionate to the offence committed and therefore cannot be sustained. - Decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2015 (9) TMI 402 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Levy of Anti-dumping Duty on USB Flash Drives - validity of investigation and findings of the Designated Authority (DA) - Sub section (5) of Section 9A of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - It is contended by the petitioner that the non-supply of the data/evidence relied upon by the Designated Authority violated the principles of natural justice and curtailed the rights of the petitioner to defend/oppose the imposition of the Anti-Dumping Duty and also amounted to a denial of an opportunity to effectively participate in the investigation - Held that:- In the present case, the Designated Authority has disregarded the transaction-by-transaction import statistics submitted by the domestic industry alongwith the application seeking initiation and introduced fresh data and relied on the transactions-by-transactions imports statistics obtained by him from the respondent No.4 at the very fag end of the investigation. The data was introduced after a period of seventeen months of initiation of investigation. Neither the copy of the said data relied upon by the Designated Authority nor the non confidential summary thereof was not supplied to the petitioners despite the same being demanded on the ground of confidentiality.

  The DA, in not providing the information/material considered by him, has violated the principles of natural justice and the same is fatal to the Final Findings rendered. Consequently, the Final Findings, having been rendered in violation of the principles of natural justice, stand vitiated and cannot be sustained. As a result, the impugned Final Findings are quashed. - Decided in favor of appellants. There is no merit in the contention of the respondent that since, the Final Finding are only recommendatory in nature, the petition is premature. It is no longer res-integra that this court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is empowered to entertain a petition challenging the Final Findings even prior to the same being accepted by the central government more so in a case where the principles of natural justice have not been complied with.

  The fact that the Rules prescribe that if the Designated Authority is satisfied that the request for confidentiality is not warranted or the supplier of the information is either unwilling to make the information public or to authorize its disclosure in a generalized or summary form, it may disregard such information, further emphasises the fact that for an investigation to comply with the principles of natural justice, it mandatorily entails sharing with the interested parties, the information/data being considered by the Designated Authority.

  ---

• 2015 (9) TMI 401 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
  

  Offence punishable under Section 21 of the Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic Substances Act, 1985 (NDPS) - Contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the statements before the Revenue Officials are not admissible in evidence, is untenable and unacceptable. - Furthermore, contention of learned counsel for the appellants that there are number of cuttings in statement suffered by Sukhchain Singh rendering it inadmissible, is not tenable - carrying approx. 5 Kg. of heroin in a hand bag - Held that:- Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against both the appellants on the basis of clear and cogent evidence. There is no ground for setting aside their conviction and sentence imposed vide impugned judgment and order dated 04.09.2009 passed by learned Judge - Decided against the appellants.

  ---

• 2015 (9) TMI 400 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Non-Compliance of Notification No.12 of 2012 – Provisional conditional release – Drill ship and rig respectively was brought in by petitioners and in order to fulfill obligation under contracts with ONGC – Drill ship 'ABAN ICE' and drilling Rig 'ABANIV' were seized by respondent no.3 on belief that though it were exempted from payment of duty under Notification No.12 of 2012 but terms and conditions of this notification are not complied with – Held that:- Admittedly petitioners have received provisional release order, but same imposed unreasonable conditions namely deposit of entire duty with interest and submission of bank guarantee and also submission of bond of 100% of value – Petitions can be disposed of by accepting undertakings of petitioners given to Court – Subject to compliance of this, petitioners shall be permitted to deploy its drill ships/rigs as per requirement of ONGC – However petitioners shall not be permitted to remove these drill ships/ rigs out of India save and except with prior permission of respondent no.3/ respondent no.4 – Petitions are disposed of accordingly.

  ---

• 2015 (9) TMI 399 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Levy of Education-cess – Exemption of duty under Notification No.45/02/Customs – Respondent-assessee filed about 16 bills of entries and claimed benefit of Notification No.45/02/Customs – On finalization of assessment, benefit of notification was extended to all bills of entries, exempting duties leviable subject to conditions that duties leviable were debited from relevant pass book under scheme known as DEPB scheme – Education cess at 2% on these duties was also debited from duties of DEPB as per clause of Finance Bill 2004 – Assesse protested against debit of education cess and in appeal it was held that debit of education cess and in terms DEPB scheme so also exemption notification was impermissible in law – Whether tribunal has jurisdiction to hold and declare that notification/circulars issued by Board are inconsistent to legislature – Held that:- duty exemption remission scheme and duty exemption pass book scheme are essentially to promote economic growth and in terms of new policy adopted by Government of India – Education cess on imported goods shall be in addition to any other duties of customs chargeable on such goods under Customs Act, 1962 or any other law for the time being in force – As per view taken by Gujarat high court in case of Gujarat Ambuja Exports Ltd. [2012 (7) TMI 679 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] if customs duty is exempted in favour of assesse, then education cess on imported goods is also not to be levied and collected – Following High Court Gujarat Judgment, substantial question of law answered in favour of assessee – Decided against revenue.

  ---

• 2015 (9) TMI 398 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
  

  Restoration of Appeal – In support of prayer for restoration of appeal, Tribunal refused to oblige appellants – Held that:- no fault with approach of Tribunal inasmuch as pre-deposit order was made in year 2007 – That was not complied with, appeals came to be dismissed – Tribunal, therefore, could not be asked to recall its order on application for restoration preferred as late as in 2013 –In said circumstances, Tribunal rightly refused to restore appeals and that too on ground that original conditions imposed be waived – Failure to comply with condition would result in automatic dismissal of appeals, and thereafter, no restoration application for extension of time shall be entertained –Decided against assesse.

  ---

• 2015 (9) TMI 397 - DELHI HIGH COURT
  

  Issue of certificate – Supply of Forged documents – Vide impugned order tribunal forfeited/penalty sum as imposed for violation of Regulation 19(1) and 19(8) of Customs House Agent Licensing Regulation, 2004 – Employee of respondent company who applied to Customs Authorities for issue of H Card had enclosed forged documents with application – Held that:- appellant authorities accepted and believed that certificate was genuine and validly issued certificate which was accepted by respondent employer – There was no allegation that there was collusion or respondent employer was aware that certificate was forged and fabricated – No substantial question of law arises for consideration – Not inclined to issue notice on application for condonation of delay – Appeal dismissed – Decided against revenue.

  ---

• 2015 (9) TMI 396 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
  

  Sanction of refund due – According to petitioner, refund application was made as early as in 2004 and yet refund was not granted – It was contended that if appeal was filed by Department, then question of granting refund at that stage does not arise – Held that:- petitioner should be informed in writing by respondent as regard fate of his refund claim – If department preferred appeal against order of Commissioner (Appeals), petitioner should be put on notice – Direction issued to respondent to consider petitioner’s request and pass orders on merits and in accordance with law – Petition disposed of – Decided partly in favour of assesse.

  ---

• 2015 (9) TMI 369 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
  

  Classification of Vessel with surplus fuel under CTH 8908 – Appellants filed bills of entry for clearance of vessels alongwith surplus fuel to be classifiable under CTH 8908 – Vide impugned order redemption fine and penalties in respect of importation of vessels for breaking purpose along with surplus fuel was imposed – Held that:- Tribunal on identical issue in case of A G Enterprises and Others vs. Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) Jamnagar [2014 (8) TMI 44 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] held that as per clarification/opinion of Joint DGFT, surplus fuel stored in fuel tanks of vessels/ship brought for breaking up is classifiable under 89.08 along with main vessel – Well settled law that clarifications on Import Policy issued by office of DGFT is binding on Customs – As imports under ITC(HS) 89.08 are free without any restrictions, therefore, such MGO/HSD contained in vessels brought in for breaking up, cannot be held as liable for confiscation under Customs Act, 1962 and no penalties upon appellants are imposable – In view of decision of Tribunal appeals are allowed –Decided in favour of Assesse.

  ---

• 2015 (9) TMI 345 - SUPREME COURT
  

  Mis-declaration of country of origin – Imposition of duties, fines and penalty – Commissioner vide order imposed duties, redemption fine and penalty – Tribunal set aside order of Commissioner after re-appreciating entire evidence – Whether tribunal is right in setting aside order imposing duties, fines and penalty – Held that:- no material was produced by Department to indicate payment by assesse importer on basis of such alleged invoice showing higher amounts – Declaration of country of origin were to be made by supplier/exporter, if goods bore Australia marking, Appraising Officers of Department should have objected at time of import – Since no objection was raised at time of import, assessments cannot be reopened for valuation under guise of mis-declaration of country of origin – No cogent material was collected to substantiate allegations – It is matter of year 1997 and it seems that exercise of remitting matter back may be futile – Therefore, appeal dismissed as no question of law involved – Decided against Revenue.

  ---

1 ....345678910