Advanced Search Options
Landmark Cases - Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 3428 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote & Decision etc.
- 2019 (3) TMI 312
Relevant date of imports for the purpose of FTP - Whether the relevant date for the reckoning the date of the imports would be the date of Bill of Lading or Bill of Entry? - Held that:- Regulation 9.11 of the Foreign Trade Policy specifically states that for the purpose of reckoning the date of import, the relevant date would be the date of Bill of Lading only. In the light of the aforesaid the Foreign Trade Policy being a complete code by itself, reference by the learned counsels for the Revenue to section 15 of the Customs Act, which fixes the date for determination of rate of duty and tariff for the purpose of valuation of imported goods as the date of Bill of Entry, may not be relevant - the relevant date for reckoning the import of the consignments of peas is the date of Bill of Lading. The grant of stay of operation of the relevant ....... + More
- 2019 (3) TMI 293
Jurisdiction - authority of Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) to exercise powers u/s 3 of the Act - converting certain items from “free” to “restricted” - delegation of power - Held that:- SLP is dismissed.
- 2019 (2) TMI 1625
Restoration of Appeal - assessee raised a preliminary objection on the ground that since there is an order of Settlement Commission qua the main Noticee and three other Co-noticees, there cannot be the adjudication, any further, with respect to remaining co-noticees - HELD THAT:- Before the Settlement Commission, the main co-noticee made an appropriate declaration with respect to its liability. The Commission after accepting the said declaration passed the order under Section 19 (1) of Finance (II) Act, 1998 directing the main co-noticee to pay an amount of ₹ 5,50,090/-. The said amount undisputedly stands paid. The immunity to the said co-noticee and 3 of his employees was given in view of the aforesaid acknowledgement of liability on their part. From the grounds of appeal also there is no other submission of the applicant - appell....... + More
- 2019 (2) TMI 1445
Validity of Pre-import conditions - Exemption from integrated tax and GST compensation cess - benefit of N/N. 18/2015- Cus - Import against Advance Authorisation - Duty Exemption/Remission Schemes - pre-import conditions - principal challenge in these petitions is to the “preimport condition” in paragraph 4.14 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2015-2020 inserted vide Notification No.33/2015-2020 dated 13.10.2017 and such “pre-import condition” introduced by clause (xii) in Notification No.18/2015-Customs by virtue of Notification No.79/2017-Customs dated 13.10.2017. Held that:- Considering the interpretation of the condition of physical export and pre-import put forth by the DRI, it is more or less impossible to make any exports under an Advance Authorisation without violating the condition of pre-import. In effect and substance, what is given ....... + More
- 2019 (2) TMI 1375
Extension of the date for issuing show cause notice after detention/seizure of the goods - appellant submits that in this case, the appellant were not issued the Show Cause Notice and given opportunity to be heard before extending the time limit for issuance of Show Cause Noptice under provisions of Customs Act - whether after the amendment of Section 110(2) of Customs Act by Finance Act, 2018 is there any need for issuance of the Show Cause Notice before the extension is permitted by another six months on the reasonable ground by the Commissioner/adjudicating authority? - Section 110 of the Customs Act, 1962. Held that:- Clause 90 of the Bill seeks, to amend Section 110 of the Customs Act so as to give power to extend the period for issuing Show Cause Notice in case of seized goods by a further period of six months to case in cases where....... + More
- 2019 (1) TMI 1324
Detention of imported item - prohibited goods or not? - import of Multi-Function Devices (Digital Photocopiers and Printers) - violation of the Foreign Trade Policy, 20152020 framed under Sections 3 and 5 of the Foreign Trade Act and the Wastes Management Rules - penultimate direction for deposit of Bond without sureties - Held that:- Indisputably, the respondents did not possess the necessary authorisation for their import. The customs authorities therefore prima facie cannot be said to be unjustified in detaining the consignment. Merely because earlier on more than one occasion, similar consignments of the respondent or others may have been cleared by the customs authorities at the Calcutta, Chennai or Cochin ports on payment of redemption fine cannot be a justification simpliciter to demand parity of treatment for the present consign....... + More
- 2019 (1) TMI 337
Jurisdiction - authority of Director General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) to exercise powers u/s 3 of the Act - converting certain items from “free” to “restricted” - delegation of power - sub-section (3) of section 6 of the Act - Validity of N/N. 19/2015-2020 dated 5.8.2017 - direction to the respondents to allow the petitioners to import the goods in terms of the contract at Annexure-A to the respective petitions - Restricted item or not - Held that:- A perusal of the impugned notification reveals that the same has been issued by the Government of India, Ministry of Commerce and Industries, Department of Commerce, Directorate General of Foreign Trade. Thus, by the impugned notification the amendment made by the Central Government in the import policy in exercise of powers under section 3 of the Act has been notified w....... + More
- 2018 (12) TMI 1160
Suspension of CHA License - case of petitioner is that the third respondent/Inquiry Officer has failed to file the report within 90 days from the date of issuance of the show cause notice - Held that:- There is no dispute to the fact that the show cause notice was issued on 13.04.2018. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner filed their reply and participated in the inquiry on 25.04.2018. However, the third respondent prepared the report only on 14.08.2018, which is evident from the perusal of the said report itself, made available in the typed set of papers. Therefore, it is clear that the third respondent has prepared the said report on 14.08.2018, which is undoubtedly beyond the period of 90 days from the date of issuance of the show cause notice. If the petitioner is an habitual offender, as alleged by the Revenue, it is not kno....... + More
- 2018 (12) TMI 738
Valuation of imported goods - Aluminum Scrap - rejection of declared value - enhancement of assessable value - Held that:- As per Sections 14(1) and 14(1-A), the value of any goods chargeable to ad valorem duty is deemed to be the price as referred to in that provision. Section 14(1) is a deeming provision as it talks of ‘deemed value’ of such goods. Therefore, normally, the Assessing Officer is supposed to act on the basis of price which is actually paid and treat the same as assessable value/transaction value of the goods. This, ordinarily, is the course of action which needs to be followed by the Assessing Officer. This principle of arriving at transaction value to be the assessable value applies. Exceptions are, however, carved out and enumerated in Rule 4(2). As per that provision, the transaction value mentioned in the Bills of Entr....... + More
- 2018 (10) TMI 601
Initiation of Sunset Review - ADD on Ductile Iron Pipes - import from Peoples Republic of China - Rule 23 of the Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Articles for Determination of Injury) Rules, 1995 - extension of ADD for a further period. Whether the impugned order dated 17.5.2018 refusing to initiate a Sunset Review, on an application made by the petitioner, stands the test of it being so passed within the prescribed legal parameters? Held that:- As is evident from the Notification dated 10/10/2013, that for the first time, anti-dumping duty on ductile pipes was imposed by a notification dated 14/09/2007. The Central Government had extended the anti-dumping duty on the subject goods i.e. ductile pipes originating in or exported from China for a further period of five years vide a notification dated ....... + More
- 2018 (10) TMI 337
Jurisdiction - Power of DGFT to amend the Foreign Trade policy - import of Newsprint - Validity of N/N. 09/2015-20 dated June 3, 2016 issued by Director General of Foreign Trade - The impugned notification requires small business persons to comply with such requisitions which are onerous. Held that:- Section 5 of the Act of 1992 allows the Central Government to formulate the foreign trade policy and to amend it. Section 3 of the Act of 1992 allows the Central Government to make provisions for prohibiting, restricting or otherwise regulating import or export of goods or services or technology. In the present case, by the impugned notification, a foreign trade policy has been sought to be amended - The Central Government could have done so in exercise of powers under Section 5 of the Act of 1992. It has however chosen to involve the provisi....... + More
- 2018 (10) TMI 336
Advance Authorizations - Relaxation in export obligation - supplies to SEZ - Minutes of a meeting / orders dated 29th August, 2016 and 6th July, 2017 of the Policy Relaxation Committee in the office of the Director General of Foreign Trade – respondent no.3 - Held that:- In the facts of this case, both the minutes of the meeting / orders dated 29th August, 2016 and the review order thereon dated 6th July, 2017 rejected the petitioner's application for relaxation only on account of failure to produce copy of bill of export of their supplies to SEZ. However, in the present facts, as in the earlier two cases party has been able to establish that supplies have been made to SEZ units i.e. M/s. Pipavav Shipyard Ltd. Ramapura, Gujarat and M/s. Hansen Drives Ltd. Coimbatore, Tamil Nadu. The impugned minutes of meeting / orders dated 29th August, 2016 and 6th July, 2017 are set aside - Petition disposed off.
- 2018 (10) TMI 174
Duty Free Import Authorizations (DFIA) Scheme - Restriction on duty free import of Bearings - benefit of customs notification No.98/2009-cus dated 11.09.2009 - restriction placed on the ground that the imported goods are not covered by the DFIA and that the imported goods must be actually used in the manufacture of export goods. On 2.8.2013, Circular No.3 (RE:2013) / 2009-14 was issued with the approval of respondent No.2, laying emphasis on para 4 which stipulates that “inputs actually used in manufacture of export product should only be imported under the authorization. Similarly, inputs actually imported must be used in export product”. The petitioners are aggrieved by the said policy Circular dated 2.8.2013 (Annexure P/11). Held that:- In terms of Clause 4.2.6 of the FTP, once transferability is endorsed, the authorization holder may ....... + More
- 2018 (10) TMI 117
Supplies made to SEZ - fulfillment of Export obligation when import was made against Advance Authorisation scheme - Minutes of meetings / orders dated 1st August, 2017 and 6th December, 2017 of the Policy Relaxation Committee in the office of the Director General of Foreign Trade, respondent no.2 - Held that:- Following the decision in the case of arsen and Tubro Ltd. (2017 (10) TMI 40), the impugned orders / minutes be set aside and the respondents be directed to issue export obligation discharge certificates in respect of advance authorizations in question. Decided in favor of petitioner.
- 2018 (9) TMI 1708
Breach of the principles of natural justice - right of cross-examination of one of the prosecution witnesses denied - Smuggling - cigarette of foreign origin - Held that:- The petitioners having put in a request for cross-examination of two witnesses of the prosecution by its writing dated April 25, 2018 and the petitioners admittedly not being granted such opportunity, the impugned order stands vitiated by reason of breach of the principles of natural justice - impugned order is quashed.
- 2018 (9) TMI 1294
Alternative statutory remedy of appeal - right to appeal against determination of dumping for imposing anti-dumping duty - Negative findings - Absence of Notification - Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - The writ petitioner resists and questions the plea of alternative remedy, stating that the appellate remedy under Section 9C of the CT Act cannot be invoked against the termination order under Rule 14 of the Rules. Held that:- Section 9C of the CT Act in the present case has to be interpreted in a manner so as not to frustrate its purpose i.e. to provide appellate remedy both in cases of "order of determination" and review. Accordingly, it will be contrary and would be against the legislative intent to hold and interpret that there is no right to appeal under Section 9C of the CT Act, when the Designated Authority does not propo....... + More
- 2018 (9) TMI 95
Refund of SAD - N/N. 102/2007-Customs dt.14.9.2007 as amended by N/N. 93/2008 dt.1.8.2008 - rejection on the ground that the claim was beyond the time limit of one year from the date of payment of duty - Held that:- In terms of Notification No.102/2007, an importer is entitled for refund of SAD that was levied at the time of import after he files necessary documents to prove that proper Sales Tax or VAT as the case may be, has been paid. As settled by various higher judicial forums, the purpose of imposing SAD is to protect and ensure collection of appropriate sales tax or VAT that is payable on imported goods, which is paid upfront at the time of imports. SAD is not credited and set off from the sales tax or VAT, which is refundable to an importer after ascertaining the appellant to appropriate Sales Tax / VAT. The appellant is eligible for refund, despite the fact that its claim of refund was belated (by 10 days) - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
- 2018 (8) TMI 1307
Interpretation of statute - correct interpretation of the term “preserved” - export under duty entitlement scheme - Contention of the Customs Department was that the exporters did not use any chemical preservatives and hence, there is no processing or preservation effected on the goods so exported by them. Held that:- Drying of marine products and freezing the meat is one method of preservation - Since Sl.No.2 specifically speaks about the processed preserved and frozen marine products, the export of which is undertaken by the respondents herein. The description of the goods as claimed by the respondents is only proper for the purpose of granting duty entitlement. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
- 2018 (7) TMI 1881
Valuation of imported goods - Prim Hot Roll Coils - enhancement of declared value - Held that:- The imported goods namely HR Coils cannot be compared with HR Plates as has been done by both the lower authorities for enhancement of the declared transaction values. The learned Counsel for the appellant has also pointed out that at para 8.3 of the order-in-original were a table of contemporaneous import with description of goods etc. shows that in respect of HR Coils the lowest value declared was USD 385 PMT and the values declared by the appellant are higher than the said values - the rejection of transaction value and enhancement of the same by the lower authority is not legally sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
- 2018 (7) TMI 1826
Interpretation of tax exemption Notification / statutory provision - applicability in case of ambiguity - correctness of the ratio in Sun Export Corporation, Bombay v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1997 (7) TMI 117 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] - Held that:- It is the law that any ambiguity in a taxing statute should enure to the benefit of the subject/assessee, but any ambiguity in the exemption clause of exemption notification must be conferred in favour of revenue – and such exemption should be allowed to be availed only to those subjects/assesses who demonstrate that a case for exemption squarely falls within the parameters enumerated in the notification and that the claimants satisfy all the conditions precedent for availing exemption. Every taxing statue including, charging, computation and exemption clause (at the threshold stage) shou....... + More