|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 40086 Records
-
2025 (4) TMI 833
Absolute confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 - imported LED luminaries - BIS No. and standard marks were not printed/embossed on the goods, but were printed on the package - HELD THAT:- The only reason for challenging the impugned order is that BIS Mark was not affixed at the time of importation as per MEITY Order, but is found printed on the packets of goods in question.
Conclusion - The goods are not liable for absolute confiscation under Section 111(d) and should be released for home consumption. The penalties and redemption fines imposed by the lower authority are set aside.
Appeal of Revenue dismissed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 832
Classification of imported goods - L-Glutamine with berries - to be classified under CTH 2922 4990 or under CTH 2106 9099? - HELD THAT:- In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) totally relied upon the source material contained in Wikipedia without discussing other materials as alleged in the show-cause notice and discussed by the adjudicating authority. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hewlett Packard India Sales Pvt. Ltd. [2023 (1) TMI 700 - SUPREME COURT], recording a note of caution on reliance of materials in Wikipedia observed that 'despite being a treasure trove of knowledge, are based on a crowd-sourced and user-generated editing model that is not completely dependable in terms of academic veracity and can promote misleading information as has been noted by this court on previous occasions also.'
No doubt Wikipedia can be considered as one of the source material for deciding the classification of the impugned product but it cannot be sole basis for arriving at the correct classification of the impugned goods, that too when it is not alleged in the notice. In these premises, the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is directed to decide the issue afresh on the basis of materials as alleged in the show-cause notice and discussed by the adjudicating authority in classifying the product.
Appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2025 (4) TMI 831
Violation of conditions of the Ad-hoc Exemption Order No. 336 dated 20.12.1995 - disposal of vehicles as scrap - time-limit for issuing a demand in respect of violation of conditions of a Notification - SCN issued almost 20 years after the duty payment - HELD THAT:- The Appellant had been gifted two vehicles, namely, a Land Rover Range Rover (1993 Model) and a Land Rover Defender (1995 Model). The said vehicles were cleared without payment of duty as per the exemption provided under the Ad-hoc Exemption Order No. 336 dated 20.12.1995. The 1993 make Land Rover Range Rover was disposed of after eight years of use and the 1995 make Land Rover Defender was disposed of after twelve years of use.
The Appellant had been using the vehicles in desert areas and the engine of the vehicles had become exhausted. The cars/vehicles had become junk and not motorable. It has been stated by the Appellants that the required spare parts of the vehicles were not available in the Indian market and importation of such spare parts from abroad is also not viable. In such circumstances, the Appellant decided to dispose of the said vehicles. It is observed that the disposal of the vehicles as scrap in a non-usable condition cannot be equated with sale of vehicles.
In the present case, the Appellant has fulfilled the Condition Nos. (i), (ii) and (iv) and it is the Condition No. (iii) which is alleged to have been violated. As per the Condition No. (iii) (supra), the vehicle should not be “sold, disposed of, gifted, loaned, exchanged. or parted away without prior permission of the Department of Revenue, Ministry of Finance, New Delhi”. It is found that this condition is meant for restricting sale of vehicles which are in working condition. If the vehicle has become a scrap and is not in a motorable condition, then this condition cannot be made applicable to demand Customs Duty.
The Appellants have not violated the conditions of the Notification, as they have not sold the vehicles. Disposing of the vehicles as ‘scrap’ after they have outlived their utility cannot be considered as “sale of vehicles”. Accordingly, the demand of Customs Duty from the Appellant is not sustainable and hence the same is set aside - As the demand of duty is not sustainable, the demand of interest and imposition of penalties on the Appellants is also not sustainable.
Time limitation - HELD THAT:- It is found that only when there is a continuous obligation to be fulfilled by an importer, as per exemption Notifications, a demand can be issued for violation of conditions of the Notifications without any time limit. In this case, the Ad-hoc exemption has not cast any continuous obligation on the part of the Appellant. As per the conditions of the Ad-hoc Exemption Order, the ‘vehicles’ cannot be sold without permission from the Ministry of Finance. This restriction is not applicable for disposal of the vehicles as ‘scrap’ once they became non-motorable. If suppression of fact with intent to evade the duty is established, then the demand must be issued within the maximum stipulated period of five years from the date of payment of duty - the Notice issued beyond the period of five years is not sustainable. Accordingly, the demand of Customs Duty from the Appellant beyond the period of five years in the impugned order is not sustainable on the ground of limitation also.
Conclusion - The Appellant did not violate the exemption conditions, the demand for duty and penalties is unsustainable, and the Show Cause Notice is time-barred.
The impugned order set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 830
Classification of imported goods - ATM monitors - to be classified under CTH 8473 as parts of ATMs or under CTH 8528 as other monitors? - HELD THAT:- Tariff Headings ATM is clearly classifiable under CTH 8472 9030, CTH 8473 4090 as ‘others’ covered under parts and accessories of the machines falling under CTH 8472. In other words, the monitor which is a part of the ATM (not disputed) is clearly classifiable under 8473 4090 as parts of ATM. The claim of the revenue to classify them under CTH 8528 5900 as ‘others’ under the residual entry only for the reason that the word monitor is specifically mentioned under this Chapter Heading cannot be accepted in view of the fact that parts of ATM are clearly classifiable under CTH 8473.
Since these parts meant for ATM are not excluded under Note 1 above, the criteria for classification would be Clause 2(b) where specifically parts which are suitable or principally used with a particular kind of machine, or with a number of machines of the same heading (including a machine of heading 8479 or 8543) are to be classified with the machines of that kind. Since, there is no dispute that the product monitors are ATM monitors which have to be necessarily used as parts of monitors they are rightly classified under CTH 8473 as parts of ATM CTH 8472.
Conclusion - The imported ATM monitors are to be classified under CTH 8473, aligning with the classification of ATMs under CTH 8472.
The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 829
Classification of imported goods - Clear Float Glass - whether the product should be classified under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 7005 1090, as claimed by the appellant, or under CTH 7005 2990, as determined by the Revenue? - benefit of N/N. 46/2011-Cus dated 01.06.2011 - HELD THAT:- The appellant had placed on record the decision by this Tribunal in their own case wherein the impugned products were classified under Chapter Heading 7005 1090. The Tribunal in M/S. SWASTIK SAFETY GLASS (BANGALORE) PVT. LTD. VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CHENNAI [2024 (10) TMI 334 - CESTAT CHENNAI] where it is held that the imported Clear Float Glass is classifiable under CTH 70051090, making the appellant eligible for the FTA benefit under Notification No. 46/2011-Cus. The invocation of the extended period for demand of duty and penalties was not justified.
Conclusion - The Clear Float Glass imported by the appellant is classifiable under CTH 7005 1090 and not CTH 7005 2990. The appellant is entitled to the benefit of N/N. 46/2011-Cus, subject to compliance with the relevant conditions.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 828
Levy of penalty - misclassification of the imported goods on bona fide ground - HELD THAT:- This issue stands settled in favour the appellant by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Northern Plastic Ltd. vs. CC & CE [1998 (7) TMI 91 - SUPREME COURT], wherein their Lordships observed that 'neither on the ground of misdeclaration nor on the ground of import being unauthorized or illegal, the goods imported by the appellant were liable to confiscation.'
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 827
Classification of imported projectors - to be classified under CTH 8528 6100 as data projectors ‘solely and principally used with Automatic Data Processing (ADP) machines’ or under CTH 8528 6900? - benefit of exemption - HELD THAT:- The matter is no longer res integra as the issue of classification already stands settled in the appellant’s own case in the case of M/s. BenQ India Pvt. Ltd. vs. ADG (Adjudication), New Delhi [2022 (9) TMI 690 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], wherein the Tribunal observed as 'The presence of such ports is only to ensure their use with laptops and ADPS. Therefore, even post 01.07.2017, goods would be classifiable under CTI 8528 62 00 and the decisions of the Tribunal rendered for the period prior to 01.07.2017 will continue to apply to projectors imported w.e.f. 01.01.2007.'
In view of the above decision and other large number of cases where the classification has already been settled in favour of the appellant classifying the impugned projectors under CTH 8528 6100, there are no reason to disagree with the above classification.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 776
Levy of penalties u/s 114(iii) and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - due diligence was not done by the CHA in both the cases before filing the export documents with customs as they did not verify existence of the exporter at the given address - failure to fulfill its obligations under the Customs Broker License Regulations, 2018, specifically under Regulation 10(d) and 10(n) of the Customs Broker License Regulations, 2018 - HELD THAT:- The department has not recorded the statement of the appellant in either of the case and made allegations without substantiating them. Neither the show cause notices nor the orders of the lower authorities bring out as to how appellant has abetted in wrong doings of the exporter to justify imposition of penalty on him under Section 114(iii) and submitted false and incorrect material for imposing penalty under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962. The SCNs invoke Regulation 13(d) and (n) of CHA Licensing Regulations, 2013 but as the matter pertains to 2020, Customs Broker License Regulation, 2018 should have been invoked.
In the case of Bansal Fine Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mundra [2022 (7) TMI 372 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD], this Tribunal has held that “CHA who filed shipping bills as per documents provided by Indian exporter is not liable to penalty under section 114 and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 when export consignment was rerouted to another country but ultimately delivered to original consignee.
Thus, it is clear that penalty on the CHA under the Customs Act can be imposed only if some positive Act of his involvement in fraudulent import/export is found with credible evidence. If there is failure on his part to fulfill the obligation cast upon him under CBLR, 2018, appropriate action needs to be taken under those regulations. As discussed, the department has not adduced any evidence in both the cases showing abetment by the CHA in alleged fraudulent activity of the exporter. They have also not brought forward any evidence to show that the CHA has used false and incorrect material in the cases. What has come out, is that the CHA has received KYC documents, export invoices, packing lists, etc. of the exporter through some other agency and filed the shipping bills with the Customs.
Conclusion - The department has not brought out anything in either of the cases to sustain its allegation against the appellant. It is further found that the penalty has been imposed on the appellant without credible evidence and therefore, it is held as unsustainable.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 714
Smuggling - two kilograms of gold, with Swiss markings - Contraband item - number of material facts as well as the judgments cited were overlooked while arriving at conclusions - reliability of statements - burden to prove - it was held by High Court that the orders of the Appellate Authorities are set aside - HELD THAT:- This Special Leave Petition is disposed off reserving liberty to the petitioner herein to take steps/seek remedies in accordance with law.
Application disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 713
Rejection of petition - declination to interfere with the challenge to the legality and validity of the show cause notice issued under Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 - classification of the exported goods - Pharmaceutical Raw Materials: Sucrose BP - HELD THAT:- Prima facie, it appears that the authority who issued the show cause notice relied on the reply of the DGFT in this regard. According to Mr. Joshi, the issue seems to have been concluded by the authority concerned relying on the reply of the DGFT and issue of show cause notice is just an empty formality - Indisputably, no reply was given to the show case notice. This is exactly what the High Court has observed in its impugned order.
In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, let the Director General of Foreign Trade look into the representations filed by the petitioner herein and take an appropriate decision in that regard. We order accordingly. The authority concerned shall proceed further with the adjudication once the Director General of Foreign Trade takes an appropriate decision.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 712
Seeking release of the goods seized - Smuggling of Gold - case of the Petitioner is that no Show Cause Notice (SCN) was served upon the Petitioner and no personal hearing was granted - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- In view of the declared law by this Court in Amit Kumar v. The Commissioner of Customs [2025 (2) TMI 385 - DELHI HIGH COURT] and the judgments which followed the same, such standard form waivers of SCN or personal hearings have no validity in the eyes of law.
The impugned Order-in-Original dated 15th January, 2025 is set aside - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 711
Provisional attachment of the Petitioners' bank accounts under Section 110(5) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The provisional attachment under Section 110 (5) cannot continue beyond the period of one year.
Section 110A would come into effect only when a party seeks to raise the provisional attachment of the bank account while the attachments still subsists. Section 110A would have no application where the attachment has ceased to exist because of the provisions of the Section 110 (5) read with its proviso. To put it in other words, once the period of one year has expired as stipulated under Section 110 (5), then one cannot resort to Section 110A to extend the provisional attachment. Once we are of this opinion, we find that the reliefs sought for raising the attachment of the bank accounts of the Petitioners ought to be granted.
Conclusion - The provisional attachment of the bank accounts of the Petitioners hereby stands raised.
Petition allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 710
Waiver of the statutory pre-deposit amount required under Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962 - petitioner's financial incapacity to pay the pre-deposit amount - Penalty u/s 114 and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- Section 129E of the Customs Act, 1962, makes it clear that any statutory appeal filed under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962, shall not be entertained unless the pre-deposit amount stipulated under Section 129- E of the Customs Act, 1962 is made by the party preferring the statutory appeal. The section says 'shall', which means the payment of pre-deposit amount is mandatory.
The petitioner being a regular importer, it can be inferred that he would have certainly known about the statutory provisions of the Customs Act, 1962, which makes it mandatory for the petitioner to pay the pre-deposit amount as provided under Section 129-E of the Customs Act, 1962. Having not sought for waiver, when the earlier writ petition filed by the petitioner before this Court was disposed of and based on the same, the petitioner had also preferred the statutory appeal, the question of entertaining this writ petition, wherein the petitioner is re-agitating the very same contentions that were raised by the petitioner in the earlier writ petition while he had challenged the very same impugned order in original dated 25.03.2023 does not deserve any merit.
Conclusion - Therefore, not only on the ground that the payment of pre-deposit amount for preferring the statutory appeal under Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 is mandatory, this Court has also given due consideration to the fact that the petitioner is re-agitating the issue once again as the very same contentions that have been raised in this writ petition, were also raised in the earlier writ petition filed by the very same petitioner wherein this Court had disposed of the said writ petition by granting liberty to the petitioner by directing the petitioner to exercise the statutory appellate remedy available under the Customs Act, 1962.
This Court does not find any merit in this writ petition - Petition dismissed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 709
Jurisdiction to issue SCN - DRI officials were proper officers or not - Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- Reliance was primarily placed upon the Supreme Court decision in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, [2021 (3) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT], which had held that DRI Officials are not ‘proper officers’.
In view thereof, the proceedings in the SCN have to continue. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner submits that he had already filed the reply to the SCN. If any further submissions are to be filed, let them be filed within four weeks before the Adjudicating Authority.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 708
Jurisdiction of officers from the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) to issue show cause notices under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The Orders-in-Original are all appealable orders in terms of Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Accordingly, the Petitioners are relegated to avail appellate remedies before the Commissioner (Appeals).
If the appeals are filed by 30th June, 2025, the same shall not be dismissed on the ground of being barred by limitation and shall be considered on merits - petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 707
Jurisdiction - proper officer to issue SCN - HELD THAT:- Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, [2021 (3) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT] which had held that DRI Officials were not ‘proper officers’ for the purpose of Customs Act, 1962.
Thus, DRI officials have now been recognised as ‘proper officers’ for initiating/conducting proceedings under the Customs Act, 1962. Hence, the present petitions have become infructuous.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 706
Jurisdiction of Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) officials as proper officers under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, to issue SCN - HELD THAT:- Reliance was placed on the Supreme Court decision in Canon India Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, [2021 (3) TMI 384 - SUPREME COURT], which had held that DRI Officials were not ‘proper officers’ for the purpose of initiating/conducting proceedings under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962.
In view of the above decision vide which DRI officials have now been recognised as ‘proper officers’ for initiating/conducting proceedings under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962, this petition would no longer survive. The show cause proceedings shall proceed in accordance with law.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (4) TMI 705
Levy of penalty - Liability of appellant for evasion of customs duty - appellant's claim is that he merely lent his Importer Exporter Code (IEC) to Mr. Rajat Arora, and was not involved in the import activities - opportunity for crossexamination of two witnesses was not granted - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- The Court does not find any question of law that would arise in the present appeal. Moreover, the Appellant has, at various stages, tried to evade the true facts and has taken incorrect pleas before various authorities. Such acts on part of the Appellant also shows that the conduct of the Appellant does not deserve any indulgence - the amounts and penalties, which have been imposed upon the Appellant in the Impugned Order are liable to be upheld.
The Appellant, who enjoyed the IEC registration, ought to have acted responsibly and ensured that the same was not misused by any third party. Apart from not being careful about the IEC codes etc., in the present case, this Court is clearly of the opinion that the Appellant and Mr. Rajat Arora were conniving with each other and were fully aware of the transactions and imports that were being undertaken. Their role cannot be delineated and differentiated in the manner that the Appellant seeks to delineate himself. Both were acting in concert with each other, as is clear from the findings of CESTAT.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 704
Levy of penalties under Section 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 - allegedly abetting the submission of false documents leading to the overvaluation and attempted illegal export of goods - HELD THAT:- The department sent a simple letter to the appellant to inquire about receipt of export documents to which he replied as having been received from M/s Mass Shipping Agencies, New Delhi through E-mail. No further investigation seem to have been done at his end to bring out is role in alleged export of goods. The appellant has acted as intermediary in the case who only transmitted the export documents received from M/s Mass Shipping Agency to the CHA for filing the shipping bills with the Customs Authorities. The department has not substantiated charges of abetment or submission of false documents or material to justify penalty upon him under Section 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act respectively.
A similar issue was decided by this Tribunal in the case of Bansal Fine Foods Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mundra [2022 (7) TMI 372 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] wherein it was held that “CHA who filed shipping bills as per documents provided by Indian exporter is not liable to penalty under section 114 and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 when export consignment was rerouted to another country but ultimately delivered to original consignee.”
Penalty under Customs Act can be imposed on a person only if some positive Act of his involvement in fraudulent import/export is found with credible evidence. If a CHA fails to fulfill the obligation cast upon him under CBLR, 2018, appropriate action needs to be taken under those regulations. In this case, the appellant is not even a CHA. He just acted as an intermediary to forward the export documents/ KYC etc. received from M/s Mass Shipping Agency to the CHA. As discussed, the department has not adduced any evidence against the appellant establishing abetment in alleged fraudulent activity of the exporter. Also, no evidence has been brought forward to show that the appellant used false and incorrect material in the case which led to confiscation of export goods. What has come out, is that the appellant received KYC documents, export invoices, packing lists, etc. of the exporter from some other Agency on his mail which he forwarded to CHA for filing papers with Customs. Therefore, the appelant cannot be penalised under Section 114(iii) and 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
Conclusion - The department has not brought out any evidence in this case to sustain allegation against the appellant. Therefore penalty has been imposed on him without credible evidence which is held unsustainable.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (4) TMI 703
Personal Penalty u/s 112 and 114AA - Proper officer - Judicial discipline - Protection of action taken u/s 155 - Proceedings against the appellants are barred by the statutory limitations outlined in Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962 - actions of the appellants, as officers of customs, could be considered as being done in good faith and in pursuance of the Customs Act, 1962, thus warranting protection under Section 155 or not - HELD THAT:- From the sparseness of judicial precedent as far as application of section 155 of Customs Act, 1962 in quasi-judicial action is concerned, it would appear that such adjudication proceedings, encompassing customs officers, is a recent phenomenon and the rarity of resort in the several decades past is a telling measure of either increasing complicity of officials or unrestrained resort by investigation and, with both from the same stock, is not a good reflection of either. It is of concern that increasing resort may not always be in public interest and, negation at appellate stage notwithstanding, is as good as continuation of damage commenced against officers, as individuals, and, as common weal, to public interest. Customs Act, 1962 offers deployment of section 136 and well as section 132 – corresponding to the charges here – for prosecuting officers of customs but, as is evident, that would be subject to judicial sieve from the very beginning and neither to be entered into lightly nor retreated from hastily.
The law is not an instrument of convenience; flexibility, appropriated for invoking jurisdiction from one provision to the exclusion of other, is nothing but encroachment unless legitimized by good grace in accepting restrictions implicit in the other. The absence of judicial rulings, except the few and of recent vintage, is not an indication that the present appellants, finding themselves in this predicament, are clutching at mere straws unless it can be shown that such proceedings through adjudication are, statistically, a norm and not deviation. Indeed, Learned Special Counsel, in response to a direct query, was unable to substantiate so - as legislative sanction accorded for instituting appellate remedy, through newly minted Tribunal and through the constitutional courts, in 1980 did not consider it necessary to exclude the safeguard enacted in 1962. Section 155 of Customs Act, 1962 are intended as safeguards and are of no less significance to adjudication proceedings.
The original authority, with determination of absence of ‘good faith’ in acts of omission and commission on the part of the appellants, has skirted the template of section 155(2) of Customs Act, 1962 which lacks that motif. The finding is perverse for not only having invoked a test which is in the preserve of judiciary for acceptance of jurisdiction by evaluation of acts for ‘good faith’ at the threshold in suits, prosecution or other legal proceedings against Central Government, officers of the Government or local authorities but also by implicit acceptance of safeguards as extending to adjudications, by having ventured upon the test of ‘good faith’ even while avoiding the facts of the dispute necessary to decide the ingress of limitation - Adjudicating authority and appellate authority may choose not be persuaded by judgements that are distinguishable on facts and law but no lower authority may sit in judgement upon any decision of higher authority for chastising or discrediting. That Revenue chose not to challenge the said decisions rendered those to be final and binding on all lower authorities.
As the trigger for limitation is ‘from accrual of such cause’ which is not only a finding on facts but also would need sifting of the investigation process for location of the trigger. While the former of the stipulations in the second of the safeguard is only a question of fact, the argument of Learned Counsel on the manner of reading the conjunction, concatenating the two deadlines, as not ‘necessary and sufficient’ has effect of adjudging the latter stipulation.
Conclusion - i) The procedural safeguards in Section 155 of the Customs Act, 1962, are crucial and must be adhered to before initiating proceedings against customs officers. ii) The absence of compliance with procedural requirements can invalidate proceedings, regardless of the merits of the case. iii) The principles of natural justice must be observed throughout adjudication processes.
The appeals are allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority.
........
|
9911796707
