|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 30101 to 30120 of 38156 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.
-
2000 (5) TMI 99
Customs House Agent's licence - Suspension of ... ... ... ... ..... oicing is not an offence under Section 18(1)(a) of FERA, 1973 and therefore also not an offence under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. In this decision, the Hon ble Tribunal had also noted the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Shilpi Exports v. CC as in 1996 (83) E.L.T. 302 (T) which had not been interfered by the Hon ble Apex Court on a Civil Appeal filed by Revenue as is reported in 1996 (88) E.L.T. A65. We are of the opinion that when such an over-invoicing does not lead to any penalty on the importers or confiscation of the goods being exported in the above decision, the suspension of a CHA licence in such an issue is not justified. 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, and findings, we set aside the order impugned and allow the appeal with consequential relief. However, it is clarified that this Tribunal has not considered the show cause notice issued by the Commissionerate as noted above and the Commissionerate is free to conduct those proceedings as per law.
-
2000 (5) TMI 96
... ...
... ... ..... Earlier deposit was not in compliance with any order levying duty which was short-paid. In this view of the matter, we overrule the contention raised by the Learned Counsel that the Department was not justified in invoking the provisions contained in Section 28 of the Act. 13.On the basis of earlier decisions rendered by this Tribunal, yet another submission was made by the Learned Counsel representing the appellant that even invoking Section 114A, the penalty imposable need not be equal to the duty not levied or short-levied. We are not disputing this proposition of law but it all depends on the facts and circumstances of each case. On the facts of this case, the Company cannot claim any such leniency from Tribunal. They tried to evade substantial amount of revenue by misdeclaring value. So we do not find any justification in reducing the quantum of penalty. 14.Appeals are disposed of as stated above. Quantum of penalty and interest stand varied as stated by us hereinabove.
-
2000 (5) TMI 93
Adjudication order not signed by the Commissioner ... ... ... ... ..... ers were operating under small scale exemption notifications and as such they had paid no duty and not taken Modvat credit. 4. On the grounds we hold that the learned Commissioner had not given due opportunity to the appellants to state their case before him. We also find that the impugned order has not been signed by the Commissioner but that in attestation it is shown that he has signed the file copy. This is entirely irregular. An order of adjudication unless signed by the maker thereof is not a valid document. We caution the learned Commissioner not to repeat this error in future. 5. This appeal is allowed. The proceedings are remitted back to the Commissioner. The Commissioner is directed to give sufficient notice to the appellants to state their case before him and then pass a well reasoned speaking order. 6. Copy of this order be marked to the Chief Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai so that he could caution the Commissioner against not signing the orders in adjudication.
-
2000 (5) TMI 83
... ...
... ... ..... he appellant is empowered to sign the miscellaneous application under the Customs (Appeals) Rules is not borne out on reading the rules. Rule 3(2) of the Customs (Appeals) Rules, 1982 provides that the appeal shall be signed, in the case of individual by the individual himself. It only provides for the application to be signed by a person authorised by the individual if he is absent from India. It is not contended that the appellant was abroad. There is no contention that the appellant is a minor or mentally incapacitated. The question of the document being signed by the guardian or such person will not arise. The appeal is in fact signed by the appellant. Rule 8(3) of the CEGAT Procedural Rules says that the application shall be signed and verified by the applicant or the principal officer. This has not been done. 3. This alone should be enough to dismiss the application. We therefore do not consider it necessary to go into the other aspect. 4. The application is dismissed.
-
2000 (5) TMI 80
Confiscation of goods - Smuggled goods - Burden of proof ... ... ... ... ..... ch is produced by the advocate for the appellant, is significant. 7.I agree that the nature of the transaction makes the origin of the goods dubious. There is considerable force in the point of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the fact of the goods being purchased from and being sold to anonymous persons and also sold without any bill raises a large question about the legal nature of the goods. At the same time, however, that alone is not enough to establish preponderance of evidence that these goods had been smuggled into India. That burden is upon the department, and has not been discharged. The conclusion that the goods were therefore not being so liable to confiscation is inevitable. 8.Accordingly, allow the appeal and set aside the impugned order. Consequential relief according to law. 9.I leave it open to the department to consider whether any possible contravention of some other law such as Income Tax and Sales Tax which may be involved with the appropriate authorities.
-
2000 (5) TMI 66
Printed matter - Printed book - Interpretation of statutes ... ... ... ... ..... lauses (a), (b) and (c) as well. Interpretation resorted to by this Tribunal in the case of Tractors and Farm Equipment Ltd., 1993 (68) E.L.T. 234 cannot be held to be the correct statement of law. The law stated by this Tribunal in 1990 (46) E.L.T. 500, 1990 (47) E.L.T. 398, 1991 (53) E.L.T. 454, 1995 (78) E.L.T. 370 and 1996 (84) E.L.T. 271 is the correct one. 12.In view of what has been stated above, we allow the appeals holding that the printed materials imported by the appellant are books coming under Tariff Heading 49.01 and are entitled to complete exemption under serial No. 10 printed books falling under Tariff Heading 49 from customs duty as per Notification No. 25/95. No duty is leviable on these goods. The contrary view taken by the Commissioner of Customs is incorrect. We reverse the order-in-original No. 95/A and R/VS/97, dated 31-10-1997 in its entirety. It means the penalties imposed on the appellant company and its Directors are also to be set aside. We do so.
-
2000 (5) TMI 65
Warehoused goods - Expiry of - Liability to interest ... ... ... ... ..... to actual amount of tax withheld and the extent of delay in paying the tax on the due date and that it is implicit from the language of Section 61(2) of the Act that interest shall be payable on the amount of duty payable or due on the warehoused goods for the period from the expiry of periods specified or granted till the date of clearance of the goods from the warehouse. In the light of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of Pratibha Processors, we reject the contention of the learned SDR that, in terms of Section 61(3) of the Customs Act, the period for payment of interest is not linked to the date of payment but commences from the expiry of 7 days from the date of which the Bill of Entry is returned for warehousing the goods under Section 59A of the Customs Act and extends till the date of clearance of the goods from the warehouse. 7. The papers are now returned to the respective Original Benches for disposal of the appeals in the light of the findings recorded above.
-
2000 (5) TMI 61
Refractories ... ... ... ... ..... s decision of the Tribunal is set aside by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Steel Authority of India v. Collector of Customs, Bombay, reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 42 (S.C.). In this case Hon ble Supreme Court held that the benefit of Notification No. 242/76-Cus. is also available to refractory blocks. 13. In the impugned order the Collector of Customs specifically held that the goods in question are bricks of special shape and quality. Nothing contrary to this finding is brought on record by the Revenue. The Notification No. 124/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987 provides concessional rate of duty to refractory bricks falling under Heading 98.06 of Customs Tariff. As discussed above the goods in question are classifiable under Heading 98.06 of Central Excise Tariff. Therefore, in view of the above decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court, the goods in question are entitled for the benefit of Notification No. 124/87-Cus., dated 1-3-1987. Appeals are disposed of as indicated above.
-
2000 (5) TMI 54
Kar Vivad Samadhan Scheme, 1998 ... ... ... ... ..... n existing obligation. The expression has been defined in Websters Universal Dictionary to mean that which is owed that which custom, statute or law requires to be paid that which any one has a right to demand, claim or possess . The expressions due and payable can be construed to be synonymous. Any sum recoverable or payable under a statute would be sum due under that statute. It has to be borne in mind that the word due has various meanings and has to be contextually considered. No liability or demand can be said to have been fastened on the basis of Annexure-C. That being the position the Authorities have rightly held that the Scheme is not applicable to the case of the Petitioner. 6.In view of the aforesaid conclusion, if any amount has been deposited pursuant to Annexure-C the same has to be refunded to the Petitioner. We make it clear that we express no opinion on the aspect whether any custom duty is payable or not in respect of the concerned transaction. 7.Dismissed.
-
2000 (5) TMI 53
Bank guarantee - Enforcement of ... ... ... ... ..... 638, Ranadey Micronutrients v. Collector of Central Excise - 1996 (87) E.L.T. 19, Poulose and Mathen v. Collector of Central Excise - 1997 (90) E.L.T. 264, British Machinery Supplies Co. v. Union of India - 1996 (86) E.L.T. 449. Of course the appellate authority is also not bound by the interpretation given by the Board but the assessing officer cannot take a view contrary to the Board s interpretation. 6. Above being the position action of Respondent No. 2 seeking enforcement of the bank guarantee cannot be sustained. Till disposal of the stay application, the bank guarantee shall continue to be operative. However, the disposal of the stay application pending before the Appellate Authority would not be dependent upon the view taken by us in the aforesaid context as the application has to be considered in proper perspective, by Respondent No. 1. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 7. Copy of the order be given Dasti to Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2.
-
2000 (5) TMI 52
Bank guarantee - Enforcement of ... ... ... ... ..... .T. 638 Ranadey Micronutrients v. Collector of Central Excise, 1996 (87) E.L.T. 19 Poulose and Mathen v. Collector of Central Excise, 1997 (90) E.L.T. 264 British Machinery Supplies Co. v. Union of India, 1996 (86) E.L.T. 449. Of course the Appellate Authority is also not bound by the interpretation given by the Board but the Assessing Officer cannot take a view contrary to the Board s interpretation. 6.Above being the position action of Respondent No. 2 seeking enforcement of the bank guarantees cannot be sustained. Till disposal of the stay applications, the bank guarantees shall continue to be operative. However, the disposal of the stay application pending before the Appellate Authority would not be dependent upon the view taken by us in the aforesaid context as the applications have to be considered in proper perspective, by Respondent No. 1. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 7.Copy of the order be given Dasti to Counsel for Respondents 1 and 2.
-
2000 (5) TMI 51
Bank guarantee - Enforcement of ... ... ... ... ..... T. 638 , Ranadey Micronutrients v. Collector of Central Excise 1996 (87) E.L.T. 19 , Poulose and Mathen v. Collector of Central Excise 1997 (90) E.L.T. 264 , British Machinery Supplies Co. v. Union of India 1996 (86) E.L.T. 449 . Of course the appellate authority is also not bound by the interpretation given by the Board but the Assessing Officer cannot take a view contrary to the Board s interpretation. 6.Above being the position action of respondent No. 2 seeking enforcement of the bank guarantees cannot be sustained. Till disposal of the stay application, the bank guarantees shall continue to be operative. However, the disposal of the stay application pending before the Appellate Authority would not be dependent upon the view taken by us in the aforesaid context as the application has to be considered in proper perspective, by respondent No. 1. The writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 7.Copy of the order be given Dasti to Counsel for respondents 1 and 2.
-
2000 (5) TMI 48
Customs House Agent's Licence - Suspension of ... ... ... ... ..... on cannot be said to be in violation of the principles of natural justice or can be equated with the principle of black listing or ban because such actions were made without giving an opportunity of hearing wherein in the instant case elaborate hearing was given and no final adjudication is made as yet. The authority concerned came to a conclusion on the basis of the prima facie investigation and thought it fit that immediate action under Regulation 21(2) will be applicable. Therefore, there is no infirmity in respect of passing of such order. Therefore, this application stands dismissed. There will be no order as to costs. Interim order, if any, stands vacated. Xeroxed certified copy of this judgment will be supplied to the parties within seven days from the date of putting requisition. 26. All parties are to act on a signed copy minute of the operative part of this judgment on the usual undertaking and subject to satisfaction of the officer of the Court in respect as above.
-
2000 (5) TMI 46
... ...
... ... ..... ould be acceptable to the respondents and that if he was of the opinion that it was not, that would be acceptable to the appellant. The matter was then adjourned to enable the parties to agree upon the name of such expert. This was ultimately done and recorded on 10th February, 2000, namely, that the examination should be carried out by an expert to be nominated by the Central Machine Tool Institute, Bangalore. The nomination having been made, the expert has now examined the machine and come to a conclusion that it is a jig boring machine. This conclusion is acceptable, in the circumstances, to the respondents. 2. In the circumstances of the case, therefore, the appeal must be allowed and the order under challenge set aside. The appellant will be entitled to consequential relief. 3. The appellant states that the cost and charges incurred in regard to the expert assessment of the machine shall be paid by the appellant. 4. Order on the appeal accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
2000 (5) TMI 41
Warehouse Licence - Renewal of ... ... ... ... ..... ed 9-8-1999. The order dated 9-8-1999 is neither arbitrary nor capricious. It is an order in accordance with the terms and conditions of the licence and in the background of the provisions of the Customs Act viz., under Sections 58, 65 and 66. Therefore, the authorities were justified in asking for an undertaking from the petitioner to export boats/launches containing 50 of the raw materials to be imported and that are lying in the warehouse. It is open to the authorities therefore to insist upon such an undertaking before ever taking up for consideration the request for renewal. Hence, the impugned proceedings cannot be challenged as ultra vires or invalid. If the petitioner wants to apply for renewal, he has to comply necessarily with the conditions. The petitioner cannot enrich himself unjustly. Hence, I have to hold that there is no merit in this Writ Petition. 7. In the result, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected WMPs will stand closed.
-
2000 (5) TMI 39
Safeguard Duties ... ... ... ... ..... s only a recommendation. This, in our view, should also have governed the writ petition filed by the petitioners. The special leave petition is dismissed.
-
2000 (5) TMI 38
Anti-dumping ... ... ... ... ..... y. The appeal that lies is against the determination and that determination has to be made by the Central Government. For this reason, we decline to exercise jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India and dismiss the special leave petitions.
-
2000 (5) TMI 37
Rate of duty ... ... ... ... ..... hat is, duty under the Customs Act , as is clear from Section 2(15) of the Customs Act. The method of determination of Customs duty thereunder where goods consist of articles liable to different rates of Customs duty is not applicable for the purposes of assessment of additional duty under the Customs Tariff Act. 4. As is clear from the order of the Tribunal, what respondent had imported was the said set. That was what the invoice referred to and it gave the price for it. That the said set comprised of a diesel engine and an alternator was of no consequence for the purposes of assessment of additional duty. There is no dispute that for the purposes of such assessment of the said set, Tariff Item 68 was applicable. 5.We think, in the circumstances, that the appeal should be allowed and the order of the Tribunal set aside. The order of the authorities below shall regulate the assessment of additional duty on the said set. 6.Order on the appeal accordingly. No order as to costs.
-
2000 (4) TMI 840
... ...
... ... ..... urged is that no link was established between the Arab Dhow and the said trawler. In clandestine activity, direct evidence may not, normally be available and the conclusion has to be drawn on the basis of facts and circumstances of each case. In the cases under consideration, Arab dhow was intercepted near Fort Aguada from where 207 silver ingots were recovered and the trawler was waiting in order to transport the same. On the basis of circumstances on record, the two Courts below have been satisfied that the link between the Arab Dhow and the said trawler had been duly established. The said concurrent findings are based on material on record and cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be said to be perverse so as to call for interference in the exercise of revisional jurisdiction of this Court. 11. For the aforesaid reasons there is absolutely no merit in any of the Revision Applications and the Revision Applications are summarily rejected. 12. Revision application dismissed.
-
2000 (4) TMI 795
Appealable Order - Appeal - Condonation of delay ... ... ... ... ..... be material. If it was a small exporter, then the mistake would be accepted to be a genuine mistake. But for an exporter of this kind, he is presumed to be knowledgeable about the correct forum to approach. In such a situation, if he approaches a wrong forum, that would not be a sufficient cause for condoning the delay. The Tribunal in the following judgments have held that the period spent in approaching the wrong forum is not a sufficient cause (1) Eastern Regional Electricity Board - 1990 (49) E.L.T. 579 (2) Krishna and Co. - 1995 (75) E.L.T. 589 (Tri). 13. emsp As my Brother has stated above, no reason has been given for not filing the appeal in time. In a similar situation, the Madras High Court in the case of Murali Match Works v. CEGAT 1992 (60) E.L.T. 546 had held that when the delay was not explainable, even by liberal standards and where delay was substantial, the delay is not condonable. 14. emsp With these words, I agree with my ld. Brother and dismiss the appeal.
............
|
