|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 28921 to 28940 of 38168 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 and Decision etc.
-
2001 (7) TMI 442
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand and Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... inod Kumar Chawla, and therefore, the Commissioner has erred in demanding duty from the applicant. Learned Counsel, further, submits that the question of imposition of penalty on the applicant does not arise since it is finding of the Commissioner himself that the applicant appears to have been taken for a massive ride by Noticee No. 3 i.e. Vinod Kumar Chawla. 3. emsp Shri P.K. Jain, learned SDR submitted that there is no infirmity in confirming the duty against the applicant since he has voluntarily deposited Rs. 1,57,520/- out of demand of Rs. 2,13,848/-. 4. emsp We have considered the submissions of both the sides. Considering the fact that there is no proposal in the show cause notice to recover duty from the applicant, and noting the finding of the Commissioner in respect of the applicant having been taken for a ride by the other noticees, we are of the view that it is fit case for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty and stay recovery thereof. We order accordingly.
-
2001 (7) TMI 406
Demand - Natural justice ... ... ... ... ..... upon documents is enclosed and he can ask for any other document for making an effective representation and 33 relied upon documents were supplied to the appellant along with show cause notice. The appellant filed reply dated 4-2-1997 to the show cause notice consisting 34 pages and in his reply, the appellant had not asked for cross-examination of any witnesses nor at the time of personal hearing such request was made. Further, we find that appellant admitted the fact that imported raw material was sold in the local market prior to fulfilling the export obligation. In view of this admission, the denial of cross-examination has not caused any prejudice to the appellant. 11. emsp As the appellant sold the duty free raw material in the local market and he has not produced any evidence to show that export obligation in respect of the raw material was fulfilled as per conditions of Notification No. 203/92-Cus., we find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 397
Rivets and C-washers - Classification ... ... ... ... ..... two decades rsquo and therefore it should have been established as to what was the change in the item, which has necessitated the change in its classification this is not borne out by the findings of the Lower Authorities. Therefore we are not able to come to a conclusion, whether the item is ldquo part of general use rdquo of iron and steel or a specific part of electrical switches, which, if so, has to be classified under Chapter 8538.10 and or 8538.90 as the case may be. The orders of the Lower authorities cannot be upheld. 4. emsp In view of our findings herein above, we would set aside such orders which have been passed on personal opinions, without relying on facts and remand the matter back to the Original Authority to redetermine the classification and thereafter the eligibility to the notification as per law. Needless to emphasise that such redetermination should be done after following the principles of natural justice. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
-
2001 (7) TMI 350
Seizure - Show cause notice for seized goods ... ... ... ... ..... re provisionally released to the owner, the Commissioner should have ordered provisional release of the goods to the appellants in terms of Section 110(2) of the Act, while allowing the extension of time for completion of the investigation for another six months. He should not penalised the appellants by declaring the release of the goods, for inability/laxity on the part of the DRI to conclude the enquiry within the stipulated period of six months. 21. emsp In the light of the discussion made above, the second part of the impugned order of the Commissioner refusing the provisional release of the goods to the appellants, cannot be legally sustained and is set aside. He is directed to release the seized goods to the appellants in terms of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act as early as possible, but not later than one month from the date of receipt of the copy of this order. 22. emsp Consequently, the appeal of the appellants stands accordingly partly allowed in the above terms.
-
2001 (7) TMI 254
Evidence - Confessional statement - Admissibility of - Seizure - Reasonable belief - Burden of proof - Confiscation of foreign currency
-
2001 (7) TMI 253
Re-Adjudication - Valuation (Customs) ... ... ... ... ..... by the appellants should be the value at the time of the importation and not any value contracted long back. However, the Department could not successfully discharge its burden of proving that the goods in question had to be valued at US 1250 PMT as alleged in the SCN. That burden was on the Customs authorities as held by the Hon ble Supreme Court in Sounds N. Images (supra). 11. For the reasons already recorded, we hold that, in the absence of proof of the Department s allegation that the correct value of the goods imported in May, 1988 was US 1250 PMT, the price declared by the appellants at the time of filing Bills of Entry should be accepted as the value of the goods for purposes of assessment of Customs duty under Section 14(1) of the Customs Act. It would follow that there is no case for imposition of any penalty on the Company or on its Managing Director. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow these appeals, with consequential reliefs to the appellants.
-
2001 (7) TMI 246
X-ray Spectrometer ... ... ... ... ..... as v. SPIC Ltd. reported in 1999 (113) E.L.T. 579 is distinguishable because that was a case where classification of polishing kit was held to be necessary for efficient functioning of the Spectrometer. Similarly another case law cited by the learned Counsel for the respondents in the case of CC Bombay v. Chemilab Corporation and CC Calcutta v. Chimlab reported in 1998 (100) E.L.T. 395 and 1999 (112) E.L.T. 475 is also distinguishable from the facts of the present case as that was a case where accessories for spectrometers were held to be classifiable under heading 9027.30. Both the above case laws do not apply to the facts and the legal issues involved in the present case. Therefore, we find lot of force in the submissions made by the learned DR. We are, therefore of the considered opinion that the goods imported by the respondents are correctly classifiable under 9022.19 of the CTA 1975. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal filed by the Revenue.
-
2001 (7) TMI 245
Confiscation - Smuggling ... ... ... ... ..... be sufficient to order confiscation in the absence of clear evidence that they were smuggled goods. 8. By applying ratio of the above decision to the facts in the instant case I find that even if the silk yarn is held to be of foreign origin the same cannot be confiscated in the absence of any positive evidence produced by the Revenue. Failure to show legal acquisition of the yarn in question cannot improve the Revenue s case and insistence upon the same would defeat the very purpose of not notifying under provisions of Section 123. In that case the non-notified goods would be brought at par with the notified goods which require production of evidence by the possessor or the owner of the foreign origin goods. 9. In view of the foregoing I do not find any justification in confiscation of the silk yarn or for imposition of penalties upon the appellants. Accordingly, the impugned orders are set aside and all three appeals are allowed with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
2001 (7) TMI 241
... ...
... ... ..... ind that strictly speaking the burden that the goods were legally imported into India was not on the appellant inasmuch as the goods in question are non-notified under the provision of Section 123 of Customs Act. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case reported in AIR 1966 S.C. page 1742 has held that the burden of proof, when it lies on the prosecution shall affirmatively and conclusively beyond an iota of doubt shall discharge the said onus, when such onus lies on the accused, the accused need not with mathematical precision prove his case, a mere preponderence of probability is sufficient. In the present case the onus lies heavily upon the Revenue to prove the smuggled character of the goods in question, which, as rightly observed by the Commissioner (Appeals) has not been discharged sufficiently. On the contrary the respondents have placed sufficient evidence on record to show the legal equisition of the goods. In view of this the appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected.
-
2001 (7) TMI 237
Confiscation ... ... ... ... ..... hat the cash memo produced could not be verified and the authenticity of the same was not proved for want of duplicate cash memo in question. I do not find any force in both the above reasoning of the Commissioners. Late filing of the ownership claim, by itself, cannot be considered to be a ground showing that sarees were meant for exportation. Similarly the enquiries conducted by the Revenue as regards purchase of the sarees has not resulted in any negative report inasmuch as one of the shop was found to be closed and no enquiries could be conducted and the second shop, there is not statement of the owner showing that the sarees have not been sold by him. Merely because the duplicate copy of the cash memo was not found in the shop premises of the said seller of the sarees cannot lead to any adverse conclusion against the appellant. Accordingly I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant. Stay petition also gets disposed of.
-
2001 (7) TMI 235
Confiscation of conveyance - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... by the appellant and the argument advanced by the learned JDR I find that the truck in question has been confiscated on the finding that the same was found to carry smuggled cardamom. However, after going through the impugned order, there is nothing to show that the driver or the owner of the truck was aware of the incriminating nature of the cardamom. Cardamom is freely available in India and as such there could be no reason for the driver to entertain any doubt about the smuggled nature of the same. Neither he is expected to go into legalities or otherwise of the acquisition and possession of the cardamom by the person engaging him for simple purpose of transportation of the goods. In these circumstances, the confiscation of the truck under Section 115 of the Customs Act or imposition of penalty upon the appellant as a father of minor son owning the truck can be upheld. As such I set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellant.
-
2001 (7) TMI 231
Penalty (Customs) - Evidence - Confiscation of conveyance - Smuggling ... ... ... ... ..... ccordingly I set aside the personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- (rupees one lakh only) imposed upon him. 6. As regards the confiscation of the truck I find that the provisions of Section 115(2) of the Customs Act provide for confiscation of the vehicle if the owner, driver or the person in charge of the vehicle has the knowledge about the contraband nature of the goods being transported in the said vehicle. Admittedly Shri Basarat Ali was driving the truck at the time of interception and there is no denial by him about his knowledge of the smuggled character of the contraband seized from the said truck. As such I hold that the truck in question is liable to confiscation. However, taking into account the fact that the owner of the truck was not having any knowledge about the use of the truck in transportation of contraband I reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand) to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only). The appeal is disposed of in above manner.
-
2001 (7) TMI 227
Smuggling - Confiscation of goods - Evidence ... ... ... ... ..... d upon the Tribunal s decision as reported in 1999 (107) E.L.T. 460 (T) 1999 (30) RLT 673 (CEGAT) as also on the decision as reported in 1996 (13) RLT 687 . 5. After considering the submissions made from both the sides, I find that silver slabs in question admittedly did not have the foreign markings and the Revenue s entire case is built up on the basis of the statements which have been contested by the appellants as involuntary. There is nothing on record to prove the smuggled nature of the seized silver except the retracted statements of accused persons. Taking into account the relied upon decisions by the ld. Consultant and as observed by the Tribunal in the case as reported in (13 RLT 687) that there being no foreign markings on the silver bar, 100 purity of the same and the factum of seizure near Pakistan Border, are not sufficient evidence to establish foreign origin, I set aside the impugned order and allow all the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants.
-
2001 (7) TMI 219
Kits - Classification of goods ... ... ... ... ..... has to be dismanted, entailing removal number of parts which are very small and may get lost in the process, or some of which may be damaged. The kit provides such parts of the fuel injection pump so that the replacement could take place with ease. From the facts, we are of the view that even assuming that the essential character cannot be determined, what will apply is Rule 3(c). This provides that possible heading which appears in the numerical order should apply. That is Heading 84.84. 7. Although neither the Commissioner (Appeals) s order or the department s appeal refers to this aspect. We must overrule the Dy. Commissioner s order that the Section 19(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 can be resorted to. In our order of Monito Enterprise - 1999 (111) E.L.T. 918 we had said specifically that the provision of Section 19(b) of the Act could not be resorted to after the Customs Tariff Act was enacted in 1986. This has been overruled by the Asst. Commissioner. 8. Appeal dismissed.
-
2001 (7) TMI 213
Export obligation - 100% EOUs ... ... ... ... ..... 1-1/92/9088, dated 16-11-1999. In para 3 of the said letter, it reads as follows - 3. Deptt. of Commerce has since finalised the procedure for sale/supply of surplus power in the DTA by 100 EOU/EPZ units and has advised this Office that pending requests of the unit are to be considered in the light of the guidelines and the proposal to be submitted for further consideration of the BOA. Para 4 of the said letter permits 100 EOU to sale/supply surplus power in the DTA in keeping with the guidelines issued by the concerned power utility agency. In view of the foregoing, we hold that the sale of surplus power has not resulted any contravention of the conditions of the Notification justifying denial of the benefit of the same and confiscation of the Power Plant in question. There is also no justification for imposition of personal penalties upon the appellants. The impugned Order is accordingly set aside and all the appeals are allowed with consequential reliefs to the appellants.
-
2001 (7) TMI 212
Valuation (Customs) - Undervaluation - Adjudication - Remand ... ... ... ... ..... S.C.) after the hearing was over and the decision was reserved. As the impugned Order has been passed and the value has been enhanced on the basis of price list of the supplier at abroad and no reply to the Addendum to the Notice was filed by the Appellants, we are of the view that in the interest of justice, the matter should go back to the Adjudicating Authority for afresh adjudication after considering the submissions of the Appellants. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to the Adjudicating Authority with direction to decide the matter afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of hearing to the Appellants and as the goods are still lying with the Department, the matter may be adjudicated expeditiously within three months of receipt of this Order. The Appellants are also directed to file their reply to the Addendum, if any, to the Adjudicating Authority within one month of receipt of this Order. The Appeal is disposed of in these terms.
-
2001 (7) TMI 209
Jurisdiction of Commissioner - Natural justice - Confiscation - Judicial discipline ... ... ... ... ..... the Appellant Nos. 1 to 3 is also not on the higher side. We, therefore, uphold this part of the impugned order. However, penalty on Shri Y.K. Gandhi, being an employee, is reduced to Rs. 25,000/-. 15.The charge levelled against the remaining Appellants in the show cause notice is that Kishan Daga had given specific numbers of sixteen cartons to the representatives of the Clearing/Freight Forwarding Agent for the purpose of examination by Customs and the said representatives were aware that only 16 specific packages of the impugned consignment contained correct materials. We find force in the submissions of both the learned Consultants who appeared on behalf of these Appellants that this charge loses its sting as these 16 cartons were also, on examination, found to contain very old/used/repaired/working Quartz Timing Movements of clocks and not the prime quality of the goods i.e. correct materials. Accordingly, the penalty imposed on the Appellant Nos. 5 to 9 are set aside.
-
2001 (7) TMI 203
Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) - Limitation ... ... ... ... ..... red post in terms of Section 153 of the Customs Act. Section 153 of the Act also clearly indicates that the order shall be served . Therefore, as the Revenue has not produced proof of service in the matter, and what is before us is only the letter issued by the Deputy Commissioner on 19-9-2000 seeking recovery of the amounts, therefore the appellants affidavit stating that they have not received the Order-in-Original nor the reminder in this case is required to be accepted. In that view of the matter, while granting stay of the recovery of amounts in the impugned order, we take up the appeal itself and remand the case to the Commissioner (Appeals) by holding that the appeal filed by the appellants before the Commissioner (Appeals) was within time, i.e. from the date of obtaining the xerox copy of the order. Therefore, the Commissioner shall re-adjudicate the matter by granting an opportunity of hearing to the appellants on merits. Thus the appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
2001 (7) TMI 199
... ...
... ... ..... ck to the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai for readjudication of the matter. The Commissioners shall hear the appellant and record a clear cut finding on all aspects of the matter and reconsider the prayer for grant of redemption of fixing redemption fine as has been held in large number of cases including the judgment of Calcutta High Court in Uma Shankar (supra). Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and matter remanded to the Commissioner of Customs, Chennai for de novo consideration in the light of observations made in this order. 10. At this stage, ld. Counsel seeks for a direction to the Commissioner to adjudicate the matter within a time frame of three months as the gold was seized in the year 1996 and five years have lapsed in the matter. 11. Ld. DR opposes the prayer. 12. We have considered this submission and we direct the Commissioner to readjudicate the matter de novo within a period of five months from the date of receipt of this order. Ordered accordingly.
-
2001 (7) TMI 189
Aluminium Scrap 'Throb' & 'Trump' - Confiscation of goods - Valuation (Customs) - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... iew of our findings in the preceding paragraphs, the impugned goods are not liable for confiscation and accordingly no penalty is imposable on Ms Manju Khandelwal and Shri Mukesh Khandelwal. No evidence has been brought on record to prove that Shri Pawan Goel and Anil Goel have anything to do with the procurement, sale and disposition of the impugned goods and about their knowledge about the goods being liable for confiscation. Same holds good in respect of Shri Gautam Chatterjee and we set aside the penalty imposed on these three Appellants. The goods imported by M/s. Venus Metal Bhandar are liable for confiscation. However, considering all the facts and circumstances of the case and duty involved, the redemption fine and penalty in respect of Venus Metal Bhandar are on the higher side. The interest of justice will be met if they are asked to pay redemption fine of Rs. 70,000/- and penalty of Rs. 30,000/-. We order accordingly. All the appeals are disposed of in above terms.
............
|
