|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 40550 Records
-
2025 (6) TMI 1517
Classification of imported goods - air filter elements - classifiable under Customs Tariff Item entry 84219900 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 as ‘parts’ of filters attracting concessional rate of duty of BCD @ 7.5% or otherwise? - extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- Pursuant to the clarification by Circular issued by the Board on 27.06.2013, the appellant has declared the classification of the imported elements of filter in accordance with the constituent material. There has been no requirement to submit the constituent material of the filter elements in the Bill of Entry and the appellant had filed all relevant documents pertaining to import like invoice, catalogue, technical write-up etc. at the time of import. In these circumstances, it is difficult to accept the finding of the lower authorities that the appellant had suppressed facts from the knowledge of the Department or mis-declared leading to invocation of extended period of limitation for confirming the demand for the previous imports.
Conclusion - i) The classification of filter elements under constituent material headings from July 2013 onwards is correct and upheld. ii) The demand for differential duty for the period prior to July 2013 invoking extended limitation is set aside. iii) The imposition of interest and penalty related to the differential duty demand is quashed.
The impugned order is modified to the extent of confirming the classification of the filter element as per the constituent material which attracts basic customs duty (BCD) for the period from July 2013 and the differential duty demand invoking extended period of limitation with interest and penalty is set aside - Appeal allowed in part.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1445
Entitlement to interest on refund claims arising from provisional assessments under the Customs Act, 1962 - relevant date of interest - last date of submission made by the Appellant is to be reckoned as the relevant date for computation of interest or the date of application? - HELD THAT:- This is a case where provisional assessment has culminated in the refund of excess paid duty to the appellant, without payment of interest. The appellant is aggrieved about the non-sanction of interest on the alleged delayed payment of refund in terms of section 18 of CA 1962. Per contra revenue is of the opinion that the refund claim has been sanctioned on time as per section 27 of CA 1962 and no payment of refund of interest arises. Thus, the amount of refund sanctioned is not contested and the main issue relates to the determination of the relevant date for payment of interest, if any.
The judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Karnataka in the case of The Commissioner of Customs Mangaluru Vs M/s. JSW Steel Ltd [2021 (10) TMI 189 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] is based on similar facts. In the impugned case also after the finalization of the provisional assessment the appellant has filed refund claims under section 27 of CA 1962. The Hon’ble High Court held that the respondent-importer cannot be permitted to take undue advantage of lapses on his part in not submitting complete document to enable the Revenue to finalize the assessment before ordering for refund of 1% EDD. Similarly in this case the proper officer found the appeal filed by the appellant defectives and issued a notice to reject the same. It’s only after considering the reply of the appellant that he sanctioned the monies due, well within 3 months of receipt of the final reply from the appellant.
Conclusion - i) Interest under Section 27A of the Customs Act, 1962 is payable only if the refund is not sanctioned within three months from the date of receipt of complete refund claim and documents. ii) The impugned order rejecting the claim for interest on delayed refund payment upheld.
Appeal dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1444
Levy of penalty on Customs Broker under Regulation 18 of CBLR, 2013 - goods imported under two bills of entry were mis-declared in respect of weight - whether the appellant had received fair treatment in the proceedings before the Original Authority? - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Parma Nanda [1989 (3) TMI 233 - SUPREME COURT], held that the Tribunal could exercise only such powers which the civil courts or the High Courts could have exercised by way of judicial review.
In Caretel Infotech Ltd. Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., [2019 (4) TMI 1838 - SUPREME COURT] also the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that Courts are expected to exercise restraint in interfering with the administrative decision and ought not to substitute their view for that of the administrative authority. Mere disagreement with the decision- making process would not suffice.
The appellant has stated that the regulation 11 [d] which provides for advising the importer of the legal requirements to be complied with by them as per law, cannot be pressed into service when importer commits any mis-declaration without the knowledge of the CB as in this case there is no justification for imputing the said contravention against them especially when their director had cleared stated that he was not aware of the said mis-declaration against which no contrary evidence has been brought on record - CBLR 2013 requires the appellant to discharge its functions with diligence and efficiency and display the prudence expected of a common man. Merely stating that he was not aware of the said mis-declaration would not suffice. Regulation 11(d) requires the CB to advise his client to comply with the provisions of the Act and in case of non-compliance, shall bring the matter to the notice of the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be. The learned commissioner has observed that the CB who collects the weight slips should have noticed the discrepancy in the weight at the time of clearance.
It is found that one of the material factor for consideration while imposing a penalty, is whether there was any actual loss or potential loss of revenue as a consequence of the actions of the appellant. It is found that the penalty imposed is not disproportionately excessive, which would require to be interfered with.
Conclusion - The appellant's failure to exercise due diligence by not reporting discrepancies in weighment slips and not advising the importer to comply with customs law constituted a blameworthy act under CBLR 2013. The penalty imposed was appropriate and proportionate.
The lower authority has taken a view which is not arbitrary or illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience or disproportionately excessive - the impugned order upheld - Appeal disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1443
Classification of imported goods - Quicklime (PCC Lime 0/20MM) - to be classifed under Customs Tariff Item No. 2522 1000 or under Customs Tariff ltem No. 2825 9090 under Section 17(4) of the Customs Act, 1962? - HELD THAT:- A similar issue has been examined by this Tribunal in the case of M/s. JSW Steel Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Cochin [2025 (5) TMI 455 - CESTAT BANGALORE] wherein the Tribunal observed that 'In the present case as discussed above, the chemical analysis clearly states that the purity is only 92% and accordingly, the product "Quick Lime" is rightly classifiable under CTH 2522 1000.'
Conclusion - Admittedly, in the Bills of Entry filed, the purity of Calcium Oxide is less than 98% and therefore, the product in question i.e., Quicklime, is rightly classifiable under Customs Tariff Item No. 2522 1000, following the decision in the case of M/s. JSW Steel Ltd.
There are no merit in the impugned orders and accordingly, the same are set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1442
Levy of penalty u/s 112(a) and 114(iii) of the Customs Act, 1962 - jurisdiction of Customs Authorities to re-open or question the export performance of the Appellants against three Advance Licenses after they have fulfilled the Export Obligation and obtained the Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) from the JDGFT - fulfilment of export obligation in respect of 10 advance licenses valid for 18 months issued under Customs N/N. 51/2000-Cus. dated 27.04.2000 and N/N. 43/2002-Cus dated 19.04.2002 or not - HELD THAT:- It is found that the export obligations are to be fulfilled in terms of the value addition as specified at para 7.13 of the Foreign Trade Policy during the relevant period. The claim of the appellant is that they have overall met the export obligation as per the details provided to the DGFT and the investigations by the customs was premature, seems to be justified, inasmuch as the export obligation is to be discharged within the period specified in the said certificate or within such extended period as may be granted by the Licensing Authority by exporting resultant products manufactured in India which are specified in Part ‘E’ of the said certificate.
The question of looking into the actual consumption of fabric in square meters does not arise unless there is an evidence to prove that the imported materials have not been utilized in the export product or diverted in the open market - there are no evidences placed on record except to state that in certain quantity of exports claimed towards discharge of export obligation have actually being cleared under drawback, which is clearly inadmissible. This fact of availing drawback wrongly has been admitted and to that extent the appellant has accepted to reverse the ineligible drawback claimed by them.
Since, DGFT Delhi has accepted their request for revalidation/extension in export obligation against the disputed advance licenses and has directed the appellant to approach the Regional Authority for clubbing of the same, it is found that any demand of duty will be pre-mature. The appellant had also placed on record Public Notice No. 34/2015-2020 dated 24.10.2017 issued by Department of Commerce, wherein it had allowed facility of clubbing of advance licenses as one-time relaxation and for regularization of exports.
Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the matter needs to be remanded to the Commissioner to verify with the DGFT with regard to the clubbing of the exports in respect of the other licenses and whether any EODC has been issued by DGFT and only to the extent of export obligation not fulfilled the question of liability arises. It is also on record that the appellant had simultaneously claimed drawback on some of the quantity which admittedly amounts to Rs.15,68,943/- as claimed by the appellant and to this extent, the appellant is liable to reverse the drawback. These facts having not been verified, the same also stands remanded.
Conclusion - i) The appellant having fulfilled export obligations as per DGFT records, the demand of duty on 3 licenses where EODC was issued stands set aside, except for reversal of wrongly claimed drawback. ii) The matter is remanded to the Commissioner for verification with DGFT regarding clubbing and issuance of EODC for the remaining licenses, and for quantification of duty and drawback reversal, if any.
Appeal disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1441
Levy of penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Personal penalty - territorial jurisdiction - Appellants were settled abroad - undervaluation while importing goods - wilful commission of fraud by deliberately suppressing the value of the imported goods with an intention to evade Customs Duty - admissible evidences or not - HELD THAT:- As per the documents available on record, the Appellant were named in the show cause notice and proceedings were culminated into the impugned order where Adjudication authority imposed penalty.
As per the impugned order, it is evident that based on the intelligence report, proceedings were initiated by conducting search in the premises of M/s. Vinayaka Hotel on 08.07.2009. However as per the impugned order, statement of various persons were considered by the Adjudication authority as admissible evidence to impose penalty against the Appellant herein.
Further there are strong force in the submission made by Ld Counsel that the provision of Customs Act was not available for the act of omission of a person beyond the Indian territory and only after extending the territorial jurisdiction with effect from 29.03.2018, the Customs Act empowered Respondent to proceed against offences beyond the jurisdiction of the India territory.
Further this Tribunal in the matter of M/s. Guru Electronics Singapore Pvt. Ltd., [2008 (9) TMI 808 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] held that the proceedings against the Company which is incorporated abroad cannot be sustained in view of the lack of jurisdiction.
Conclusion - In the absence of any admissible evidence, the penalties imposed on the Appellants are unsustainable.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1440
Non imposing penalty against the Respondent under Section 114 AA of the Custom Act, 1962 - violation of principles of natural justice - HELD THAT:- There are no reasonable opportunity of being heard has been afforded by the Adjudicating Authority to the Respondent. Therefore, the impugned order is in violation of principle of Natural Justice which required to be set aside. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside.
The Adjudicating Authority is directed to re-adjucate the matter after affording reasonable opportunity to the Respondent after supply of the required documents to the Respondent and thereafter follow the judicial discipline and then adjudicate the matter within 90 days of receipt of this order.
Appeal as well as Cross –Objection are disposed of.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1372
Seeking direction to provisionally release the goods in terms of Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- This Court is not expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's contention. It is for the respondents to decide the same on merits and in accordance with law after giving due consideration to the judgment of the Delhi High Court in Navshakti Industries Pvt Ltd Vs. Commission of Customs, Delhi [2010 (5) TMI 592 - DELHI HIGH COURT], which was on appeal confirmed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Navshakti's case [2011 (5) TMI 149 - SUPREME COURT].
This Court directs the petitioner to submit a fresh representation to the respondents seeking for provisional release of the imported goods imported under Bill of Entry No.7882362, dated 20.01.2025, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1371
Seeking Mandamus in the nature of direction to the respondent/appellant herein to give 'G' card license to the petitioner within a time frame fixed by the Court - learned Single Judge has miserably failed to properly interpret the provisions of the Regulation and has substituted his own interpretation - HELD THAT:- In this case, when there is specific notification that the selection will be based on the performance in the written examination and in the viva-voce, the writ petitioner having participated not once, but twice had come to the Court after 5 years of his first attempt, without clearing the viva-voce.
The Regulation 17(7) (ii) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013 clearly states that Form 'G' card will be issued only in case a person pass examination referred to in Sub Regulation (3) of Regulation 17 - Sub Regulation (3) of Regulation 17 speaks about employment of a person as a Customs Brokers obtaining license on clearing examination conducted by the Deputy Commissioner or Assistant Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be.
The Public Notice No.7 of 2014, dated 15.07.2014 inviting application for 'G' card examination without any ambiguity intimates that the public with the caption “Form 'G' examination (written and oral examination) under Regulation 17(3) of Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013.” - While so, having knowingly participated in the process that the examination will be in two parts i.e., written and oral, the attempt of the writ petitioner to change the game rule by way of a writ petition cannot be entertained. The learned Single Judge erred in allowing the writ petition which is contrary to Law and Statute.
The writ petitioner who had participated in the viva-voce twice, 1st time on 29.10.2014 and 2nd time on 07.10.2016 and both time failed to secure the minimum marks required. He cannot have the advantage of nullifying the provisions to suit his convenience after participating in the process of selection.
Conclusion - i) The word "an examination" under Regulation 17(3) includes both the written and viva-voce examinations. Clearing only the written examination does not entitle the petitioner to the license. ii) The petitioner is not entitled to the 'G' card license without clearing the viva-voce examination as per the 2013 Regulations. The delay and conduct of the petitioner further disentitle him from relief.
The order of the learned Single Judge is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1370
Violation of principles of natural justice - withdrawal of petitioner's empanelment as a Chartered Engineer without granting an opportunity of hearing - HELD THAT:- Admittedly, the respondent before passing the impugned communication had not given an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The impugned decision certainly will result in serious civil consequences as the primary source of work for the petitioner is rendering Chartered Engineer's service in the valuation of import / export of goods. Therefore, the right of livelihood of the petitioner has been affected by the passing of the impugned communication.
Certainly, as a Chartered Engineer empanelled with the respondent, the impugned communication under which the petitioner's empanelment as Chartered Engineer has been withdrawn with immediate effect by the respondent, will affect the right of livelihood of the petitioner. Therefore, the respondent ought to have been granted an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner before issuing the impugned communication, withdrawing with immediate effect, the petitioner's empanelment as a Chartered Engineer.
This Court is of the considered view that the impugned communication has to be quashed to enable the petitioner to participate in the enquiry and to enable the respondent to unearth the truth after providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner with regard to the contentions that have been raised in this writ petition and till final orders are passed, necessarily the impugned communication has to be kept in abeyance to protect the interest of the petitioner in case it is found at a later date that the petitioner has not committed any violation as contended by the respondent before this Court.
Conclusion - The impugned order is quashed withdrawing the petitioner's empanelment, and it is directed that the respondent to conduct a fair enquiry within four weeks with an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, and it is ordered that the impugned order be kept in abeyance pending final determination.
The impugned communication dated 28.03.2025 under which the petitioner's empanelment as a Chartered Engineer has been withdrawn with immediate effect by the respondent, is quashed by directing the respondent to complete the enquiry within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order and pass final orders thereafter, by providing an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by adhering to the principles of natural justice - Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1369
Violation of principles of natural justice - cryptic order without dealing with each of the discussions which were duly highlighted in the appeal memos - non-speaking order - HELD THAT:- If the impugned order is tested on the anvil of principles laid down in Kranti Associates [2010 (9) TMI 886 - SUPREME COURT], it will be clear like noon day that the impugned order cannot sustain judicial scrutiny. The same is cryptic and does not assign any reason in relation to various grounds. It is crystal clear that the order of the learned Appellate Authority is an example of non-application of mind. Learned Appellate Authority has not dealt with each of the points raised by the petitioners in the appeal memos. He passed an order stating that the petitioners have failed to provide any credible evidence to rebut the specific findings. He did not deal with the defence of the petitioners on the aspect of right to cross-examine the witness. Thereafter, the learned Appellate Authority opined that in view of the findings of the adjudicating authority and material on record, since the impugned order has elaborately dealt with the submissions of the noticee, interference was declined.
Since in the order of the learned Appellate Authority he miserably failed to apply mind and assign reasons, it is unable to countenance the orders. Hence, both the impugned orders passed in the appeals are hereby set aside. The petitioners are directed to appear before the learned Appellate Authority on 02.04.2025 at 11:30 AM.
Petition disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1368
Revocation of the Customs Broker License - forfeiture of the security deposit - the allegations against the appellant are relating to blame worthy conduct under the CBLR - burden to prove - HELD THAT:- The proceedings under CBLR are in essence disciplinary proceedings to ensure compliance with the statutory provisions. In such case the role of the Tribunal while examining an appeal is to examine the manner in which the decision was made. It is not expected re-appreciate the evidence or function as an appellate authority in disciplinary proceedings or interfere with the original authority’s decision unless the findings are not based on any evidence, illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards.
The investigation in the impugned case points to acts being done covertly and the importer of the container not presenting himself to the officers for an enquiry, with facts relating to the alleged violations of the Customs Act and CBLR being in the special or peculiar knowledge of the persons involved. It is also trite law that the belief, knowledge and intention of the parties are evidence, and these can be gathered from the actions of individuals and from documents, including statements of individuals, related to the appellant. However the burden of producing some evidence in respect of the fact in issue remains on the department. The standard of holding an issue proved is by the test of a prudent man who upon weighing the various probabilities finds that the preponderance is in favour of the existence of the particular fact.
Evidence in this case is mainly in the form of statements. The statements made against the appellant are not corroborated by independent evidence and hence when they are refuted by the appellant in their own statements, the evidence would fail the test of a prudent man and are to be held as ‘not proved’. The original authority has reached a conclusion without adducing proper proof. In an issue having penal consequences, the benefit of doubt must go to the appellant. The appeal hence succeeds. As per the erstwhile Section 3 of The Indian Evidence Act, 1872, as it stood during the relevant time, a fact is said ‘not to be proved’ when it is neither proved nor disproved.
Though it is true that an advocate prepares the pleadings and make their submissions before the quasi-authorities / court on instructions given by their clients, however they should, as an officer of the court, use their legal acumen to assist the authorities in the administration of justice fairly and in a cordial manner by maintaining decorum of language, while conducting legal proceedings on their clients behalf. While they are free to point out portions of the order under challenge, which are felt to be not legal or proper, they should desist from casting aspersions on the decision of quasi-judicial/ judicial authorities.
The impugned order is set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1367
Continued suspension of the appellant's Customs Broker License under Regulation 16(2) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 - time limitation for maintainability of SCN - whether, the proceedings as well as the interim proceeding of suspension challenged herein, survive if the SCN has been issued beyond the mandated period stipulated in Regulation 17(1) of the CBLR 2018?
HELD THAT:- On a perusal of the CBLR, 2018 notified vide Notification No.41/2018-Customs (N.T) dated 14th May, 2018, in supersession of the CBLR, 2013 dated 21st June 2013, it is seen that Regulation 14 empowers the Principal Commissioner or Commissioner of Customs to revoke the license of a Customs Broker and order for forfeiture of part or whole of security on any of the grounds stipulated therein, subject to the provisions of Regulation 17.
The proviso to Regulation 16(2) stipulates that in case the Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, passes an order for continuing the suspension, further procedure thereafter shall be as provided in regulation 17. Regulation 17 of CBLR, 2018 which prescribes the procedure for revoking license or imposing penalty, at Regulation 17(1) of CBLR ibid, stipulates that the Principal Commissioner of Commissioner of Customs shall issue a notice in writing to the Customs Broker within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of an offence report, stating the grounds on which it is proposed to revoke the license or impose penalty, requiring the said Customs Broker to submit within thirty days to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs nominated by him, a written statement of defense and also to specify in the said statement whether the Customs Broker desires to be heard in person by the said Deputy Commissioner of Customs or Assistant Commissioner of Customs.
When the mandate of Regulation 17(1) is that the Principal Commissioner of Commissioner of Customs shall issue a notice in writing to the Customs Broker within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of an offence report, evidently the SCN No.09/2025 dated 17-03-2025 issued, is beyond 90 days from 09.12.2024, the date of receipt of the offence report. The show cause notice ought to have been issued on or before 08.03.2025, which is the 90th day from the date of receipt of the offence report. Therefore, the show cause notice has clearly been issued beyond the time limit prescribed in the regulation 17(1) ibid.
The time period for issuance of show cause notice prescribed in Regulation 17(1) is mandatory and that in the instant case the Principal Commissioner of Customs, has not issued the show cause notice No.09/2025 dated 17-03-2025 within a period of ninety days from the date of receipt of an offence report, which is the period of limitation prescribed under Regulation 17(1) of the CBLR 2018. In as much as we have now taken cognizance of the issuance of the said SCN No.09/2025 dated 17-03-2025, the SCN having been issued beyond the period of limitation, is without jurisdiction and thus being non-est in law, is not maintainable.
Conclusion - The proceedings initiated under the impugned order of continued suspension, which is prior to the consequential proceedings under Regulation 17 calling upon the appellant to show cause, does not have an independent continued existence and therefore cannot sustain.
Appeal allowed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1366
Suspension of CHA license - F Card (F Pass) No. S-108/01 (F) attached with the said CHA Firm also became non-functional - difference in quantity between the quantity as declared in the B/E and that were found physically - violation of Regulations 10(a), 10(b), 10(d), 10(m) and 10(q) of CBLR, 2018 - Penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the appellant under Regulation 18 of the CBLR, 2018.
HELD THAT:- The appellant was an employee of the Customs Broker Firm M/s. S.K. Acharya and the F Card bearing No. S-108/01 (F) was issued to him on 06.03.2007. A perusal of the above F Card number clearly shows that the said F card had been tagged with the CB Firm M/s. SK Acharya bearing CHA License No. S-108, Code No. 2104. It is also observed that the F Card of the appellant was renewed from time to time and it was last renewed on 07.08.2019 (renewed up to 26.11.2026), when the Customs Broker, M/s. S K Acharya was operational. On 17.06.2022, the Customs Broker License of M/s. S.K. Acharya (PAN No. ABFFS9543N) was suspended relating to some purported irregularity. So, we observe that the natural corollary of the suspension of the License of the CB Firm S K Acharya was that the F-Card of the appellant, attached with the said CB Firm, also lost the status of being operative with effect from 17.06.2022.
It is also observed that the appellant started to function as a freelancer based on his experience in the import-export matters in his individual capacity to earn his livelihood. It is observed that this activity of the appellant cannot be considered as an activity undertaken by him in his capacity as an F-Card Holder, as his F card was already inoperative.
In this case, an Offence Report was forwarded by SIIB to the Commissioner of Customs indicating therein some discrepancies noticed in the consignments imported by M/s. Ashok Trading Co. and M/s. New Heera Sales Corporation. It is a fact on record that the clearance of the said consignments were dealt with by the CB Firm M/s. P.R. Logistics - the appellant played a limited role of liasoning in the form of intimating duty liability, sharing assessed Bill of Entry copy along with ICEGATE E-payment link for payment of said duty amount etc. It is clear that these activities were undertaken by him in his individual capacity and not as a F Card holder, as his F card is already non operational.
Further, in the instant case, it is observed that the entire allegation against the appellant has been upheld on the basis of statement given by Shri Ashok Banka, Importer. There are no concrete evidence against the appellant in the offence report against the appellant. It is also found that there is no evidence brought on record by the Department against the appellant to establish that the appellant has violated the provisions of the Regulations 10(a), 10(b), 10(d), 10(m) and 10(q) of the CBLR, 2018.
It is well settled that mere allegation alone is not sufficient to establish the role of the appellant in the alleged offence. Accordingly, the allegation of violation of the provisions of the Regulations 10(a), 10(b), 10(d), 10(m) and 10(q) of the CBLR, 2018 against the appellant herein are not substantiated. Consequently, the revocation of the F card of the appellant by the Pr. Commissioner of Customs (Airport & ACC Commissionerate) Custom House, Kolkata vide Order dated 27.03.2024, is legally not sustainable and hence we set aside the same.
Penalty of Rs. 50,000/- imposed on the appellant under Regulation 18 of the CBLR, 2018 - HELD THAT:- It is observed that when the charge against the appellant is not sustainable, the question of imposition of penalty on him does not arise. Accordingly, the penalty imposed on the appellant is set aside.
Conclusion - i) The Revocation of the F Card of the appellant as ordered in the impugned order set aside. ii) The penalty imposed on the appellant in the impugned order is set aside.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1365
Revocation of suspension of Customs Broker License - forfeiture of security deposit - levy of penalty - goods weighed 28230 kilograms as against the declared quantity of 9880 kilograms by the importer - whether Customs Broker fulfilled their obligations under the CBLR 2013, and if not, whether the disciplinary action taken against them was legally sound? - HELD THAT:- The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri Parma Nanda Vs. State of Haryana and others [1989 (3) TMI 233 - SUPREME COURT], held that the Tribunal could exercise only such powers which the civil courts or the High Courts could have exercised by way of judicial review.
In Caretel Infotech Ltd. Vs Hindustan Petroleum Corpn. Ltd., [2019 (4) TMI 1838 - SUPREME COURT] also the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that Courts are expected to exercise restraint in interfering with the administrative decision and ought not to substitute their view for that of the administrative authority. Mere disagreement with the decision-making process would not suffice.
Based on the judgments above the scope of examining the appeal is limited to the deficiency in decision-making process and not the decision. The Tribunal is not expected to interfere with the original authority’s decision unless it is illogical or suffers from procedural impropriety or was shocking to the conscience, in the sense that it was in defiance of logic or moral standards or has reached a conclusion without adducing proper proof.
Conclusion - The order suffered from fatal procedural irregularities, including non-adherence to mandatory timelines and failure to specify charges clearly, rendering the order unsustainable and liable to be set aside.
Appeal of Revenue dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1364
Revocation of the Customs Broker License - forfeiture of the entire security deposit - imposition of penalty - attempt to aid the importer to bye-pass the policy restrictions - failure to discharge the obligations cast upon him under Regulation 10(d), (e) & (n) of CBLR 2018 - HELD THAT:- Though the CHA/Customs Broker acted in good faith still, there are other grey areas like the above, which require clarifications, but however the same are not explained by the CHA/CB. This does not ipso facto mean that the Revenue has proved violations of Regulations of CBLR, 2018 to the extent of cancelling the very license issued to the Customs Broker apart from forfeiture of the entire Security Deposit and imposing penalty.
Considering the above, and the fact that the Customs Broker could have been more diligent in discharging his obligations cast not only towards his clients but also to justify holding “H” card, it is deemed appropriate to modify the impugned order by setting aside the revocation of license and forfeiture of entire Security Deposit; however, reducing the penalty to Rs.5,000/- as a deterrent.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1363
Classification of imported goods - multimedia speakers with added ancillary features of USB/SD card/ MMC Playback and/ or FM radio - classifiable under CTH 8527/8519 as claimed by the Revenue or under CTH 8518 as claimed by the appellant - headphones with added feature of FM radio is classifiable under CTH 8527 as 'radio broadcast receivers' as claimed by the Revenue or under CTH 8518 as claimed by the appellant? - Invocation of extended period of limitation.
Whether multimedia speakers with added ancillary features of USB/SD card/ MMC Playback and/ or FM radio are classifiable under CTH 8527/8519 as claimed by the Revenue or under CTH 8518 as claimed by the appellant? - HELD THAT:- An identical issue had come up before this Tribunal in the appellant’s own cases. In M/s. Jupiter International Limited vs Commissioner of Customs (Port), Kolkata [2025 (2) TMI 430 - CESTAT KOLKATA], under similar facts and circumstances, it has been observed the goods should be classified under heading no.85182200 as speakers, rather than under heading no.85279100 as broadcast receivers.
Thus, he appellant has rightly classified the multimedia speakers with added ancillary features of USB/SD card/ MMC Playback and/ or FM radio under CTH 8518. Accordingly, the demands confirmed against the appellant by reclassifying the said goods under CTH 8527/CTH 8519 are not sustainable and therefore, the same is set aside.
Whether the headphones with added feature of FM radio is classifiable under CTH 8527 as 'radio broadcast receivers' as claimed by the Revenue or under CTH 8518 as claimed by the appellant? - HELD THAT:- While classifying goods, as per the General Rules of Interpretation, a specific heading is always to be preferred over a general heading. In the present case, the appellant has imported ‘headphones and earphones’, which are specifically covered under Tariff Item No. 8518 30 00. Thus, the goods imported by the appellant are appropriately classifiable under Tariff Item No. 8518 30 00, as claimed by the appellant.
Reliance placed in the judgment pronounced in the case of Logic India Trading Company vs. CC [2016 (3) TMI 5 - CESTAT BANGALORE], wherein by placing reliance on the Interpretative Rules, Section Note 3 to Section XVI and the judgment pronounced by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Xerox India Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai [2010 (11) TMI 20 - SUPREME COURT], it has been held that the criteria for classifying the product under consideration is the principal and the main function it performs, which remains to be speakers, in spite of the fact that the multimedia speakers under consideration had added features of USB playback and/or FM radio. Admittedly, the headphones imported by the appellant in this case are primarily meant to provide audio/sound facility restrictively to the person using it with merely an ancillary feature of in-built FM radio.
The headphones imported by the Appellant merit classification under Customs Tariff Item 8518 30 00 as headphones and earphones, whether or not combined with a microphone, and sets consisting of a microphone and one or more loudspeakers' and not as radio broadcast receivers as contended by the Department.
Invocation of extended period of limitation - HELD THAT:- It is seen that there is no evidence available on record to establish intent on the part of the appellant to evade payment of duty. The issue also pertains to interpretation of statutory provisions under the Customs Tariff Act and hence, in such a case, the invocation of extended period provisions are not warranted. Thus, the invocation of the extended period of limitation in this case is not sustainable and hence, the demand confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation is set aside.
Conclusion - i) The demands confirmed against the appellant by reclassifying the said goods, namely, multimedia speakers with added ancillary features of USB/SD card/ MMC Playback and/ or FM radio under CTH 8527/CTH 8519, are not sustainable. ii) The demands confirmed in the impugned order, by reclassification of the said goods, namely, headphones with built in FM radio under Customs Tariff Item 8527 19 00 as 'radio broadcast receivers' are not sustainable.iii) The classification of goods in respect of models as per Annexure-D to the Show Cause Notice under Tariff Item No. 8518 29 00, has not been contested by the appellant and hence the same is upheld. iv) The invocation of the extended period of limitation in this case is not sustainable and hence, the demand confirmed by invoking the extended period of limitation is set aside.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1291
Classification of imported Bovine Serum Albumin - to be classified under ITCHS Code 30039031 or under 35029000? - challenge to impugned order on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice and also on the ground that the impugned order is a non-speaking order - HELD THAT:- Though a non-speaking order with regard to the contentions of the petitioner, which has been reiterated by the petitioner in this writ petition, the first respondent has held that the consignment of “Bovine Serum Albumin” Standard imported by the petitioner vide the subject Bill of Entry dated 30.03.2024 has been rejected and the imported goods should be immediately be deported to the country of origin or destroyed at the petitioner's own cost under intimation to the first respondent. Being a order which drastically affects the right of the petitioner, the first respondent should have passed a speaking order after adhering to the principles of natural justice.
In case, the petitioner is able to establish after having been afforded an opportunity of hearing, that the consignment of “Bovine Serum Albumin” Standard imported by them has to be classified only under ITCHS Code 35029000, in which event, there is no requirement for them to produce an advance Sanitary Import Permit (SIP) issued by Government of India before import. Since the impugned order is a non-speaking order with regard to the contentions of the petitioner and since the impugned order is an order passed by violating the principles of natural justice, the impugned order has to be quashed and remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law after giving due consideration to the petitioner's contentions raised in this writ petition and after affording personal hearing to the petitioner.
The impugned order dated 08.04.2024 passed by the first respondent is hereby quashed and the matter is remanded back to the first respondent for fresh consideration on merits and in accordance with law - Petition disposed off by way of remand.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1290
Dismissal of petition for discharge filed under Section 245(2) Cr.P.C. - offences u/s 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962 - smuggling of foreign origin gold bars - reliability of statements - case of the petitioner canvassed in the discharge petition is that the prosecution mainly relied on the alleged confession made by the first accused and the second accused and if the said confession is kept aside, no incriminating material is available to frame charge as against the second accused - HELD THAT:- It is settled law that at the stage of framing charge, the Court has to prima facie consider whether there is sufficient ground for proceeding against the accused and the Court is not required to appreciate evidence to conclude whether the materials produced are sufficient or not for convicting the accused.
It is also settled law that while considering an application seeking discharge from a case, the Court is not expected to go deep of the probative value of the material on record, but on the other hand, the Court has to form a presumptive opinion as to the existence of the factual ingredients constituting the offence alleged, and for that purpose, the Court cannot conduct a roving enquiry into the pros and cons of the matter and weigh the evidence as if it is a main trial.
In the present case, as already pointed out, the main reason advanced is that the confession of the first accused available in the case on hand cannot be used against the petitioner and that the suspicion is only mere suspicion and there is not even strong suspicion available. As already pointed out, the prosecution has examined 5 witnesses as P.W.1 to P.W.5 and exhibited 15 documents. According to the prosecution, the petitioner herein has given two confession statements which came to be exhibited as Exs.P.9 and P.10 through P.W.3. It is the specific case of the prosecution that the first accused as well as the petitioner were summoned under Section 108 of the Customs Act and after appearance, they have given statements admitting their involvement in the alleged gold smuggling.
It is settled law that a statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act is a material piece evidence and can be used as a substantive evidence. As rightly contended by the learned Special Public Prosecutor, such statement cannot be equated with the confession taken by the police officer under the Code of Criminal Procedure - In the present case, as rightly pointed out by the learned Special Public Prosecutor and also by the learned Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, a cursory perusal of the statements recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act from the accused including the petitioner, the evidence of P.W.1 to P.W.5 and other billings and export documents produced, this Court has no hesitation to hold that the prosecution has produced materials sufficient enough to frame charges against the petitioner and as such, the impugned order dismissing the discharge petition cannot be found fault with.
Conclusion - The dismissal of the discharge petition filed by the second accused upheld, holding that the prosecution had produced sufficient prima facie evidence, including the accused's own statements under Section 108 of the Customs Act, corroborated by other material, to frame charges under Sections 135(1)(a) and 135(1)(b) of the Customs Act, 1962.
This Court concludes that the Criminal Revision case is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed - the Criminal Revision Case is dismissed.
-
2025 (6) TMI 1289
Declination of drawbacks claimed by the petitioner for the exports made by him by way of two shipping bill - entitlement to drawback on exports made, given the delay in realization of export proceeds beyond the stipulated period under Section 75 of the Customs Act, 1962 - sufficient evidence to prove - whether there is any extension of time by the AD-I Bank? - HELD THAT:- According to the petitioner, Ext.P11 was issued in response to Ext.P10, wherein it is mentioned by the AD-I bank that all the transactions of the petitioner has now been regularised. All the export repatriation of the petitioner were regularized and at present there is no pending shipping bills for payment for the said exporter. Thus, based on the aforesaid documents, the specific case advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner is that, Ext.P6 issued by the AD-I bank read with Ext.P11 would clearly indicate that, the period stipulated in Rule 16A stand extended and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to get the drawbacks, as the same falls within the extended period as permissible under the said rules.
When going through the impugned orders, it is discernible that, the documents referred to above could not be considered because, evidently Ext.P11 was obtained by the petitioner after original order, which is Ext.P9. Moreover, Ext.P11 does not contain a specific reference to the earlier transactions and therefore the mere production of the same by itself cannot be an indicator of the fact that there was an extension of time by the AD-I bank, as stipulated in Rule 16A. These are matters to be examined.
However, it is to be clarified that, if the amount received by the petitioner as evidenced by Ext.P6 on 29.04.2015 was within the periof of an extension as required in Rule 16A, then the petitioner should be entitled to get the benefit of drawback. It is also to be noted that, going by Ext.P15 Master Circular, it is not necessary that extension should come from the Reserve Bank of India itself as the AD-I bank are authorized to grant such extension. Therefore, the question as to whether the receipt of the amount as evidenced by Ext.P6 was on the basis of extension as contemplated under Section 16A is a matter which requires to be considered. Since such a consideration is could not be made in any of the impugned orders, it needs to have a reconsideration.
Conclusion - The extension of time for realization of export proceeds under Rule 16A can be granted by AD Category-I banks authorized by the RBI, not solely by the RBI.
This writ petition is disposed of quashing Exts.P9, P12 and P14 with a direction to the 3rd respondent to reconsider the claim of the petitioner and take a fresh decision after taking into account all the documents referred to in this writ petition and with specific reference to Ext.P6, P10 and P11 - petition disposed off.
........
|
9911796707
