|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 40545 Records
-
2025 (5) TMI 424
Classification of the imported Seaweed Extract - to be classified under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 1212 29 10 or CTH 3101 00 99? - non-furnishing of documents relied upon in the Show Cause Notice prior to passing the adjudication order - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The very same goods of the Petitioner have been classified under CTH 3101, by the Commissioner of Customs (NS-I), JNCH (vide his order dated 30th April 2019) and the said order has been duly reviewed and accepted by the Review Committee of Chief Commissioners of Customs under the provisions of Section 129D of the Customs Act, 1962 and has not been challenged. Though these orders have been referred to whilst recording the submissions of the Petitioner, there is absolutely no finding and/or reasoning in relation to these orders and why the present Commissioner is taking a different view. The impugned order is completely silent on this aspect. This is yet another reason why the impugned order requires interference.
The Testing Authority has in fact answered a query, which is quite telling. One query raised by the Department was whether the goods of the Petitioner were an Organic Fertilizer, and which was answered in the affirmative. This Test Report also finds no mention in the impugned order which is another reason why we are inclined to interfere with the impugned order.
Conclusion - The impugned order has been passed without furnishing the documents relied upon in the Show Cause Notice. On this ground alone, it would be justified in setting aside the impugned order.
The impugned order cannot be sustained and would have to be set aside - matter remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for giving a De Novo hearing to the Petitioner [after supplying the documents referred to in the SCN] and thereafter pass a reasoned order - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (5) TMI 423
Recall of order vide which the Anticipatory Bail has been granted to Respondents - reasonable apprehension of arrest or harassment by the Investigating Agency justifying the grant of Anticipatory Bail under Section 438 Cr.P.C. - smuggling of gold - HELD THAT:- The DRI in their reply had stated that summons were repeatedly sent for enquiry under Section 108 Customs Act in connection with smuggling of 57 Kg of gold, but the Respondent failed to join the enquiry till date. This aspect was well considered by the learned ASJ to observe that the Respondents assertions established that it was not a mere fear or belief of apprehension without any basis, but the apprehension arose since they had been summoned only on the basis of statements of the co-accused and they could have been arrested; such an apprehension was real and could not be termed as fear or without any basis. Therefore, the Respondent had reasonable grounds of apprehension of being arrested.
Furthermore, from the conduct of the DRI, it cannot be stated that there was no apprehension of harassment at their end. The learned ASJ in a well reasoned Order had considered all the contentions of the DRI before granting the Anticipatory Bail - Merely because the DRI stated that they had no intention to arrest the Respondents, was not sufficient to allay their apprehension of arrest since they were being served with Notices for joining the inquiry.
Conclusion - The grant of Anticipatory Bail in the present case was rightly made by the learned ASJ after considering all relevant facts, including the Respondents' status, lack of direct evidence against them, and the conduct of the Investigating Agency.
There is no merit in the present Application for cancellation/recall of Anticipatory Bail, which is hereby dismissed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 422
Entitlement to benefit of MEIS in respect of shipping bills which were issued against the goods exported by the petitioner to Egypt, Algeria, Libya and Romania between July 2015 to August 2016 - delay on part of the foreign importers to release foreign exchange remittances in respect of the shipping bills - HELD THAT:- In the very nature of things, policy relaxation cannot be claimed by the petitioner as a matter of substantive right. The same lies within the realm of the discretion of the concerned authorities to be exercised in exceptional circumstances. It is for the PRC to consider whether the cited circumstances are such as to warrant grant of relaxation.
In the present case, the PRC has noticed that in respect of 6 out of the 8 shipping bills, the payment was realized by the petitioner within 3 years from the export date and it was possible for the petitioner to avail the benefits under the MEIS Scheme with applicable “late cut”, however, the petitioner, for reasons best known to it, did not take the requisite steps - Consequently, in due course, the said shipping bills became ineligible for benefits under the MEIS in terms of the Policy provisions.
In the present case, the Committee found that the payment was received much beyond the period stipulated under the Policy. As such, the PRC, after due consideration of the matter, rejected the application of the petitioner, thereby, denying the benefits under the MEIS to the petitioner - The view taken by the PRC neither suffers from any apparent jurisdictional error nor is afflicted on account of perversity / non-consideration of relevant aspects.
This Court finds no justification in seeking to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to displace / upset a considered view taken by the PRC.
Conclusion - Payments for most shipping bills were realized within the permissible three-year period, and the petitioner failed to claim MEIS benefits within that period despite the availability of late cut fees. Payments for the remaining shipping bills were realized beyond the stipulated period, falling outside the scope of usual relaxation.The PRC's decision rejecting the petitioner's claim was neither arbitrary nor unreasonable and did not warrant judicial interference.
This Court finds no merit in the present petition; the same is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 421
Refund of interest paid on import duty due to technical glitches in the Electronic Cash Ledger (ECL) system during the phased implementation starting 01.04.2023 - rejection on the ground that such refund is not admissible, in light of the Customs (Waiver of Interest) Third Order, 2023, Order No. 03/2023-Customs (NT) dated 17.04.2023 (Customs Order) read with Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Bone of contention is that while the phased implementation of ECL in Customs was being initiated from 01.04.2023, there arose certain technical glitches in the functioning of ECL facility at the Common Portal, and thus, the delay in payment has attracted interest which the petitioner seeks refund of.
HELD THAT:- The circular dated 17.04.2023 had of course provided for the refund of interest until the date of system inability removal, and for an additional three days thereafter, as stipulated in Annexure-7. This circular specifically addressed the waiver of interest payable under Section 47 (2) of the Act of 1962 for the period from 01.04.2023 upto and including 13.04.2023 in respect of such goods where the payment of import duty was to be made from the amount available in ECL.
This Court finds that the advisory issued by the D.G. Systems which is the backbone of the determination of the date of the technical glitches which would be there in the implementation of the ECL facility, which require the D.G. Systems to pronounce and certify the same - the advisory thus, clearly envisages that for ICEGATE registered users, the date of removal of the system inability, in context to the third order dated 17.04.2023 would be the date of issue of advisory which is 27.07.2023. Thus, practically, the D.G. Systems has acknowledged that the technical glitches were existing till 27.07.2023.
This Court finds that the order dated 17.04.2023 acknowledged the technical difficulties to have been resolved only to a large extent, but not entirely. The order dated 17.04.2023 itself stipulates the requirement of waiver of the interest as per the certification given by the D.G. Systems regarding the duty and interest from the date of removal of such system inability at the Common Portal. Since, the date of removal of system inability at the common portal has been certified by the D.G. Systems vide advisory dated 27.07.2023 to be 27.07.2023 itself, therefore, the respondents cannot claim interest and will have to refund any interest which has been taken by them for the transaction in question, particularly, when the petitioner made the necessary payments in pursuance of the bill of entry having been returned, though the payment itself may have a third party failure, which cannot be attributed to the present petitioner. The certification by the D.G. Systems of the technical difficulties in existence making the system having inability at the Common Portal upto 27.07.2023 clinches the issue of refund in accordance with Section 27 of the Act of 1962 read with the Circular dated 17.04.2023.
Conclusion - This Court is firmly of the opinion that the impugned order dated 21.11.2023 suffers from inconsistency with conjoint reading of Section 47 and Section Act of 1962, order dated 17.04.2023, the advisory issued on 27.07.2023 and the effort of the petitioner to make the necessary payments to the Banks successfully on 20.04.2023 vide Annexure-8.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 420
Absolute confiscation - levy of penalty and quantum thereof - black pepper of foreign origin - violation of Section 46 of the Customs Act, 1962 through routes that were not notified under Section 7(c) of the Customs Act - HELD THAT:- The alleged intermediary Ashish planted by the appellant could never be traced, nor his whereabouts ascertained. Even the appellant who had allegedly placed order for supply of 20-22 MTs black pepper on said Ashish could not intimate his whereabouts including phone number. It is thus likely that there may be no existing person of the said description and it is only stated as a façade to protect the appellant. Even the investigating agencies could not lay its hand on said Ashish, nor Pravin Kasera for whom said Ashish was meant to supply the goods led the authorities to any of his details.
The fact of having placed order for procurement of 20-22 tons by a “fictitious” person is clever ploy by the appellant to extricate himself of consequential liabilities. The appellant could not produce even a single piece of evidence to support his contention that they had placed order on the said person named Ashish, who in turn had allegedly informed the appellant, about the seizure. With no formal orders or no payments having been made and with no details about Ashish, the version of the appellant is difficult to be believed. That being so, if Ashish was a real person upon whom the appellant had placed order for supply of said black pepper it belies logic as to why the appellant was/is not familiar with the whereabouts of the person who promised to deliver such large quantity of the said goods.
From the facts of the case, it is evidently established that the appellant was well aware as to where the black pepper is being procured from and how it was required to be transported to prevent detention. It is not tenable that the import of such huge quantity of black pepper worth crores of rupees would be made by an unknown seller without receiving any payment from the purchaser. No prudent businessmen would deal and carry out such activities to/from unknown buyers and risk huge quantity of goods.
Conclusion - There are no reason justifying non-imposition of penalty on the appellant. Mens rea on part of the appellant and his intent for smuggling of large quantities of black pepper evading duty payment is established. The onus to support his version about Ashish by furnishing his details was on the appellant, which has not been discharged. There is no payment proof of licit acquisition of the said goods. The confiscation of goods calls for no interference. There being no real owner/claimant of seized goods, the absolute confiscation of smuggled black pepper is in order. The appellant by his contumacious conduct has indeed rendered himself liable for imposition of penalty.
A penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellant would meet the ends of justice. The Order of the lower authority, is thus upheld and modified only to the aforesaid extent, qua the appellant - Appeal allowed in part.
-
2025 (5) TMI 419
Quantum of penalty u/s 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - mis-declaration, misclassification and undervaluation of the imported goods - HELD THAT:- From perusal of Section 112(a)(v), 114A and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962, it is clear that they are distinct and meant for imposition of penalty on the basis of facts obtaining in each case. In fact, prima facie it appears that the fifth proviso to Section 114A bars levy of penalty under Section 112 or Section 114, if a penalty were to be imposed under Section 114A. Therefore, the act of the Adjudicating Authority in imposing a combined penalty very clearly reflects a non-application of mind.
The matter remanded back to the Adjudicating Authority for the limited purpose of a decision afresh on the applicability and quantum of the penalties that are to be imposed under the aforesaid provisions, duly bearing in mind the relevant binding judicial precedents. Needless to say, the Adjudicating Authority should adhere to the principles of natural justice.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (5) TMI 418
Levy of penalty u/s 114 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 - alleged involvement in the attempted export of prohibited goods, namely peacock feathers of Indian origin - role of appellant in securing the consignment or shipment or preparation of export documents misrepresenting the nature of goods as ‘carpets’ instead of ‘peacock feathers’ - HELD THAT:- The impugned order dated 13.05.2012 has been passed without taking into consideration the facts of the case, the role of the appellant in the alleged attempt of Shri Gambhir to export the prohibited items i.e. Peacock Feathers from India.
The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Jindal Drugs (Infra) [2016 (6) TMI 956 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] wherein the Hon’ble High Court laid down a detailed procedure, inter alia, providing for cross-examination of the witness of the Revenue by the Adjudicating Authority and thereafter, if the Adjudicating Authority is satisfied that the statement of the witness is admissible in evidence than the Adjudicating Authority is obligated to offer such witnesses for cross-examination by the other side/assessee. Such view has also been affirmed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Andaman Timber (Infra) [2015 (10) TMI 442 - SUPREME COURT].
The learned Commissioner has wrongly relied upon the statement of the co-accused and the appellant recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 and has wrongly come to the conclusion that appellant by act of omission and commission rendered the ceased goods liable for confiscation under relevant provisions of Customs Act and rendered himself liable to penalty under Section 114(i) of Customs Act, 1962.
In adjudication, the adjudicating authority is required to first examine the witness in chief and also to form an opinion that having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the statements of the witness are admissible in evidence. Thereafter, the witness is offered to be cross-examined then only the statement of the witness can be relied upon for fastening the liability upon him for omission and commission.
The impugned order passed by learned Commissioner imposing penalty of Rs. 3,00,000/- on the appellant Samir Ahmed Mansuri, under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 is not sustainable and is liable to be set-aside - appeal allowed.
Conclusion - The adjudicating authority erred in relying solely on the appellant's statement under Section 108 and on statements of co-accused that did not implicate the appellant directly. The appellant's presence at the premises with the principal accused was insufficient to establish active involvement or conspiracy. Penalty cannot be imposed on appellant.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 417
Enhancement of Basic Customs Duty (BCD) rate of 30% on crude palm oil, notified on 17.11.2017, but published in the Official Gazette on 20.11.2017 - Bills of Entry were filed on 16.11.2017 and entry inward granted on 18.11.2017 and 19.11.2017 - relevant date for determining the applicable customs duty rate under Section 15 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- As the admitted fact is that the said Notification had been published in the Official Gazette on 20.11.2017, therefore, even if the dates of entry inwards are taken to decide the rate of duty applicable, the same are 18.11.2017 and 19.11.2017, which is prior to the publication of the said Notification in the Official Gazette.
Considering the fact that the Notification No. 87/2017-Cus. dated 17.11.2017 was published in the Official Gazette on 20.11.2017 whereas the dates of entry inwards are prior to 20.11.2017, it is held that the enhanced rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 87/2017-Cus. dated 17.11.2017 is not applicable to the facts of this case. In these circumstances, it is held that differential duty / enhanced duty cannot be demanded from the appellant. The appellant are liable to pay Basic Customs Duty on Crude Palm Oil at the rate of 15%.
Conclusion - The enhanced rate of duty in terms of Notification No. 87/2017-Cus. dated 17.11.2017 is not applicable as it was published in the Official Gazette on 20.11.2017, which is after the dates of entry inward. The appellant is entitled to refund of the excess customs duty paid along with interest.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 416
Benefit of N/N. 25/1999-CUS dated 28.02.1999 (Sl. No. 62) and N/N. 24/2005-CUS dated 01.03.2005 (Sl. No. 39) - aluminium based Copper Clad laminates which was imported and used after following the procedure prescribed in the Customs (Import of Goods at concessional rate of duty for manufacture of excisable goods) Rules, 2017 [2017 Rules] to manufacture “aluminium clad printed circuits boards”.
Are Metal core printed circuit boards (MCPCBs) also printed circuit boards (PCBs) or are they different from them? - HELD THAT:- Metal core printed circuit board performs the same function as the printed circuit board and is manufactured using the same method but has an additional functionality of dissipating heat quickly which is required in certain applications. Merely because a good has some additional functionality, it does not cease to be the good. A car, for instance, will NOT cease to be a car simply because it has power steering or power break or auto-transmission, advanced navigation or entertainment systems. The car does not cease to be the car because of these additional features and functions.
Was the benefit of the exemption Notification No. 25/1999-Cus (S.No. 122) before it’s amendment on 2.2.2022 available to the aluminium based copper clad laminates which were imported? - HELD THAT:- Since the goods in question are composite materials, applying the General Rules of Interpretation, they could fall under any of the Chapters depending upon the composition and essential character of the goods. Chapter 39 covers goods of plastic, Chapter 74 covers goods of copper, Chapter 75 covers goods of nickel, and Chapter 76 covers goods of aluminium. The goods covered by S.No. 122 of the notification can fall under any of these Chapters. Therefore, it cannot be said that goods which also have aluminium core are not covered by the notification when clearly goods which are classifiable under Chapter 76 are also covered by the notification. For instance, if there is metal core laminate with large amount of aluminium by weight and if it is classified accordingly as an article of aluminium, the goods are still entitled to exemption under S.No. 122.
The functions of assessment and re-assessment under Section 17 and the recovery of duty under Section 28 are distinct. Therefore, the exercise of functions under Section 17 can only act as a “jurisdictional fact” for the purpose of excluding the jurisdiction of other proper officers empowered under that section for the exercise of the rest of the functions specified therein. Similarly, the exercise of the function of issuing show cause notices under Section 28 by a particular proper officer serves as a jurisdictional fact which would exclude the jurisdiction of other proper officers empowered under Section 28.
In the case of Vintek, when in respect of 29 of the 80 Bills of Entry were already decided by the jurisdictional Commissioner in favour of the importer by order dated 13.10.2023 and further when such decision was not even assailed by the Revenue, could the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) pass a contrary order confirming the demand in respect of 80 Bills of Entry, including the 29 in respect of which an order was already passed? - HELD THAT:- Clearly, the demand in respect of the 29 Bills of Entry is hit by lack of jurisdiction of the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) to issue the SCN dated 30.6.2022. Once the Additional Commissioner (Preventive) and Deputy Commissioner exercised their powers under section 28 in respect of these Bills of Entry, it automatically precluded every other proper officer, including the Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) from also exercising his jurisdiction under section 28 in respect of the same Bills of Entry. This legal position is evident from Cannon India [2024 (11) TMI 391 - SUPREME COURT (LB)].
The order of the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) dated 30.6.2022 cannot also be sustained in respect of the remaining 51 Bills of Entry because the issue involved in all the 80 Bills of Entry is identical. Once the order dated 26.9.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Tughlakabad decided the issue and it was not appealed against and thereby attained finality, the Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) could not have taken a contrary view on the same issue. It would have been a different case if the issue was still disputed and SCNs were issued for subsequent Bills of Entry.
Conclusion - i) MCPCBs are PCBs for the purpose of exemption notifications. ii) Aluminium based copper clad laminates were covered by the exemption under Notification No. 25/1999-CUS (S.No. 122) even before the 2022 amendment. iii) The Principal Commissioner of Customs (Preventive) lacked jurisdiction to issue show cause notices and pass orders in respect of the 29 Bills of Entry already adjudicated by the jurisdictional Commissioner, and could not take a contrary view on the remaining 51 Bills of Entry.
The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 415
Levy of penalty on the appellant under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 - prohibited goods were being attempted to be exported by mis-declaring them as unaccompanied baggage through Malaysian Airlines - HELD THAT:- Having considered the submissions made by both sides and the role of the Nishant Kumar Singh as recorded in the impugned order, we find that there is nothing in the impugned order to show that Shri Nishant Kumar Singh had any role in the attempted smuggling of red sanders other than the fact that he was a friend of Shri Krishna Chandra Jha. In view of the above, it is found that Shri Nishant Kumar Singh, the appellant, had no role in the attempted smuggling of red sanders. The penalty imposed on him, therefore, cannot be sustained.
The impugned order is set aside insofar as it pertains to imposition of penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on the appellant - Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 414
Invocation of extended period of limitation contemplated under the proviso to section 28(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 - jurisdiction to issue SCN - denial of benefit under Sr. No 363A *List 37 Sr. No 22) of N/N. 21/2002-Cus dated 1.3.2002 - competence to issue SCN - HELD THAT:- Annexure-A to the show cause notice gives details of the 13 Bills of Entry that had been filed by the respondent. The dates are from 23.09.2025 to 09.02.2010. The show cause notice mentions that the extended period of limitation contemplated under the proviso to section 28(1) of the Customs Act was being invoked in respect of all the 13 Bills of Entry - It is not in dispute, as has also been noticed by the Commissioner (Appeals), that the appellant had declared all the particulars of goods in the Bills of Entry. He had also submitted the import documents and it is after examination, that the goods were cleared. It has, therefore, to be examined whether in such a situation, the extended period of limitation could be invoked.
The appellant had claimed the benefit of an exemption notification believing that it was entitled to exemption. If this belief of the appellant was found to be incorrect, it was for the officers at the time of processing the Bills of Entry to have raised a query and taken a decision. But in the present case, the Bills of Entry were assessed and out of charge was given after the goods were examined.
The Commissioner (Appeals) has relied upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Northern Plastic Ltd. vs. Collector of Customs & Central Excise [1998 (7) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the Supreme Court also observed that whether the appellant was entitled to the benefit of exemption under a notification or not was a matter of belief of the appellant.
The other finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence did not have the competence to issue this show cause notice is not sustainable in view of the recent decision of the Supreme Court in Canon India [2024 (11) TMI 391 - SUPREME COURT (LB)].
Conclusion - The finding recorded by the Commissioner (Appeals) that the extended period of limitation under the proviso to section 28(1) of the Customs Act could not have been invoked does not suffer from any illegality.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 413
Abatement of appeal - Misclassification and undervaluation of the imported goods with a deliberate intention to evade payment of appropriate customs duty - HELD THAT:- It is apparent that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the same for non-prosecution under Rule 20 of Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1982. However, the appellant is at liberty to file for restoration of appeal showing justifiable reasons for such restoration.
The appeal is dismissed under Rule 20 of CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for default.
-
2025 (5) TMI 320
Validity of the order of High Court in Quashing the SCN due to delayed adjudication - it was held by High Court that 'The issuance of innumerable notices would also not absolve the respondents of their statutory obligation to proceed with promptitude bearing in mind the overarching obligation of ensuring that disputes are resolved in a timely manner and not permitted to fester' - HELD THAT:- Counsel for the Revenue argued that, the impugned judgment and order passed by the High Court of Delhi needs to be suspended from its operation as the same is creating lot of problems for the Revenue.
Since we are looking into the larger issues involved in this matter, we may only say that if any matter comes up for hearing before the Tribunal or any of the High Courts on the subject in question, the hearing may be deferred till we take an appropriate call in the matter.
List the matter after Summer Vacation.
-
2025 (5) TMI 270
Seeking exemption from detention - gold kada seized from the Petitioner at the airport constitutes a personal effect under the Baggage Rules, 2016 or not - Petitioner has requested not to receive the Show Cause Notice and personal hearing - HELD THAT:- Clearly, a perusal of the photographs and the fact that it is one Kada which is usually worn by persons like the Petitioner who are Sikhs, leaves no doubt in the mind of the Court that the same was a personal effect of the Petitioner. Moreover, in the cases of Mr Makhinder Chopra vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2025 (3) TMI 19 - DELHI HIGH COURT]] and Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs [2025 (2) TMI 385 - DELHI HIGH COURT] this Court has discussed various issues arising in such cases where the goods have been detained from a tourist by the Customs Department, including the issue of personal jewellery being part of personal effects under the Baggage Rules, 2016 and waiver of SCN and personal hearing by way of a preprinted waiver form.
Conclusion - Considering the fact that the gold kada seized is merely a personal effect of the Petitioner, in the opinion of this Court, the detention itself would be contrary to law. The detention of the gold kada is set aside.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (5) TMI 181
Valuation of imported goods - engineering and technical service charges paid to a local agent of a foreign supplier must be included in the assessable value of imported goods under the Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 or not - HELD THAT:- In so far terms of payment is concerned, 100 percent of FOB value had to be paid in U.S. Dollars. It was also mentioned therein that product support service would be rendered by M/s Voltas Limited on payment of engineering and technical service charges. After referring to instances of product support service, it was stipulated that payment of engineering and service charges at the rate of 8 percent of the net FOB value would be made on pro-rata basis to M/s Voltas Limited in equivalent Indian currency at the exchange rate prevailing on the date of the bill of lading. Product support services included determination of actual requirement of spares, to assist in speedy customs clearance including insurance survey, prompt replacement in case of discrepancies in supplies etc.
The foreign supply had made it clear that the appellant had to pay an additional 8 percent of the total FOB amount on a pro-rata basis against each shipment to M/s Voltas Limited in Indian currency. It was clarified that this payment was to be made to Voltas Limited and was not to be deducted from the FOB amount payable to the foreign supplier.
Engineering and technical service charges paid to the local agent M/s Voltas Limited were 8 to 10 percent of the transactions of the appellant with the principal i.e. the foreign supplier. Such charges were paid as a recompense for the services rendered towards making the sale effective. Hence, engineering and technical service charges were nothing but commission - Observing that the sale had become conditional in view of the conditions posed in quotation by the foreign supplier, the consequential engineering and technical service charges were fully covered by Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules. Assistant Commissioner referred to the Note to Rule 4 of the Customs Valuation Rules and observed that engineering and technical service charges were not being paid for maintenance of any industrial plant, machinery or equipment. It was nobody’s case that these charges were being paid under a contract for maintenance, erection, commissioning of an industrial plant, equipment or machinery.
Looking into the nature of imports, Commissioner (Appeals) held that services provided by the Indian agent was on behalf of the foreign seller and was directly related to the sale of imported goods. Provision for such service and payment of service charges constituted a condition of sale. In such circumstances, the first appellate authority upholding the view taken by the Assistant Commissioner held that engineering and technical service charges were includible in the assessable value of the imported goods.
What Section 14(1)(a) provides for is that for the purpose of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 or any other law for the time being in force whereunder a duty of customs is chargeable on any goods by reference to their value, the value of such goods shall be deemed to be the price at which such or like goods are ordinarily sold or offered for sale, for delivery at the time or place of importation or exportation, as the case may be, in the course of international trade where the seller or buyer had no interest in the business of each other or one had no interest in the business of the other. As per sub-section (1A), subject to the provisions of sub-section (1), the price referred to in that sub-section in respect of the imported goods shall be determined in accordance with the rules made in this behalf - In exercise of the powers conferred by Section 156 of the Customs Act read with Section 22 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the Customs Valuation Rules have been framed. Rule 4 deals with transaction value. The transaction value of the imported goods shall be the price actually paid or payable for the goods when sold for export to India, adjusted in accordance with the provisions of Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules.
In J.K. Corporation Limited [2007 (2) TMI 1 - SUPREME COURT], this Court considered the question as to whether customs duty would be payable on the purchase price of the goods by adding the value of the license and technical knowhow to the value of the imported goods - Note to Rule 4 has been explained by this Court in J.K. Corporation Limited. This Court after adverting to the relevant portion of the Note to Rule 4 held that what would be excluded for computing the assessable value for the purpose of levy of customs duty is any amount paid for postimportation activities including any amount paid for postimportation technical assistance.
From the above case, it is found that the services rendered by the Indian agent were not post-importation activities. The services provided were directly relatable to the import of the goods by way of product support service which is covered by Sections 14(1) and 14(1A) of the Customs Act read with Rule 9(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules.
Conclusion - The view taken by the lower authorities that the engineering and technical service fees/agency commission/charges paid to the local agent of the foreign supplier are includible in the assessable value of the imported goods is correct and no interference is warranted.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 180
Condonation of gross delay of 229 days in filing the appeal which has not been satisfactorily explained by the appellant - Violation of principles of natural justice - no speaking order - Challenge to order of adjudication under section 17(4) of Customs Act, 1962 - enhancement of value and classification of goods - it was held by CESTAT that 'The observation made by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) in the impugned order agreed upon wherein it has been held that the Adjudicating Authority is mandatorily required to pass the speaking order under section 17(5) of the Act which Adjudicating Authority fails to do so.' - HELD THAT:- The Civil Appeal is, accordingly, dismissed on the ground of delay, keeping the question of law open.
-
2025 (5) TMI 179
Seeking release of detained goods - Smuggling of 1065.10 grams of gold - disposing of the detained gold without proper intimation to the Petitioner - it was held by High Court in [2025 (2) TMI 641 - DELHI HIGH COURT] that 'This Court is of the opinion that the Petitioner is entitled to the entire value of the detained gold as on the market rate prevalent today, which would be liable to be paid by the Customs Department within a period of three weeks.' - HELD THAT:- No case for interference is made out in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
The Special Leave Petition is accordingly dismissed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 178
Benefit of exemption - Import of Camera - Extended period of limitation - Jurisdiction of DRI to issue Show Cause Notice (SCN) - Proper Officer - Validity of proceeding initiated for Recovery of duty not paid - clearance of the cameras on the basis that they were exempted from levy of basic Customs duty under Notification No.15/2012 - HELD THAT:- The decision relied upon by the Tribunal was taken in review by this Court in the case of “Commissioner of Customs vs. Canon India Pvt. Ltd. [2021 (3) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT]. The review was at the instance of Revenue and the same was allowed.
The common impugned order passed by the CESTAT set aside and the matter remitted to the Tribunal for fresh consideration on its own merits in accordance with law.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2025 (5) TMI 177
Condonation of Delay in filing the special leave petition - HELD THAT:- Following the order in Union of India and Another vs. M/s Asia Exporters & Others [2023 (10) TMI 1435 - SC ORDER], this Special Leave Petition also stands dismissed.
-
2025 (5) TMI 176
Right to speedy trial - undertrial has been in custody for too long - large-scale economic offence involving criminal conspiracy, forgery, cheating, and misappropriation of public funds - grant of regular bail - HELD THAT:- It is crucial for a court to recognise and be conscious of the right of an accused to speedy trial; and to prevent that right from being defeated, rather than wake-up much too late and lament that such right has been defeated. In Mohd. Hakim vs. State (NCT of Delhi) [2021 (10) TMI 1414 - DELHI HIGH COURT], a Division Bench of this court, of which the undersigned was a member, has urged courts to act as doctors instead of coroners, to highlight that a court seized of a bail petition must endeavour to assess the pace at which a trial is proceeding and to not wait for too long, by which time the Article 21 right of an accused is already trampled upon.
In the present case, for example, the chargesheet comprising about 10,000 pages was filed over 01 year ago citing 49 prosecution witnesses but charges are yet to be framed. It is therefore obvious that trial will take a long time to conclude. In the meantime however, the petitioner has already suffered more than 01 year of judicial custody and has been exposed to ‘prisonisation’; and there appears to be no cogent basis to satisfy the test of ‘necessity’ as discussed above for his continued detention.
Considering the allegations in the subject FIR insofar as they relate to the petitioner, this court is accordingly persuaded to admit the petitioner to regular bail, pending trial, subject to the conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
............
|
9911796707
