|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 79 Records
-
2008 (6) TMI 613
... ...
... ... ..... he petitioner to file an application praying for payment of interest on the amount refunded regarding anti-dumping duty within a fortnight from this date before the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Appraising and Refund Section, Kolkata, respondent no.3. If such application is filed within the time as stipulated above, the said respondent shall dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order in accordance with law to be communicated to the petitioner after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Such exercise shall be carried out by the respondent no.3 within four weeks from the date of filing such application. I make it clear that I have not gone into the merits of this case and all points are left open to be dealt with by the respondent no.3 in the event the application is filed within the time as stipulated. No order as to costs. All parties concerned are to act on a signed copy of the minutes of the operative portion of this order on the usual undertakings.
-
2008 (6) TMI 612
Suspension of CHA licence - charge of forgery dropped, which was the base of suspension of licence - penalty - Held that: - there was specific finding regarding forgery and mis-declaration of goods by the adjudicating authority against the appellant and the impugned order was passed immediately after passing the adjudication order. The appellant filed appeal and the Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty and the appellant's appeal against the Commissioner (Appeals) order is still pending with the Tribunal. Therefore, the allegation against appellant regarding mis-declaration of goods is still there - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2008 (6) TMI 608
... ...
... ... ..... oner. This court is bound to give full effect to the statutory provisions and petitioner should be given the benefit of the section. Read in the light of the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions, sec.447(6) entitles the petitioner for deemed license for the period required in the application subject to the provisions of the Act, Rules and the Bye-laws and on conditions which would have been ordinarily imposed. 9. In view of the above position, the writ petition is disposed of holding that the petitioner is entitled to deemed WP(C) 13844/2008 license as provided under section 447(6) of the Act and restraining the respondent Corporation from preventing the petitioner from carrying on the retail shop at the premises mentioned above. However, it is clarified that in case any of the provisions of the Act, Rules or Bye-laws are not complied with, it will be open to the Corporation to take such action as is permissible in law, with notice to the petitioner.
-
2008 (6) TMI 603
Appeal - Restoration of ... ... ... ... ..... since the company had paid up the entire amounts due to the creditors. Therefore, the appellant is seeking for restoration of the appeal as the company continues to be in existence. 2. emsp The learned DR refers to the comments filed by the Commissioner in the matter. 3. emsp Heard both sides in the matter. We notice that the appeal was dismissed as abetted (sic) (abated) under Rule 22 of CESTAT Procedure Rules by following the High Court rsquo s order of winding up of the company. Now the order of winding up has been recalled by the High Court by their order dated 17th April, 2008. In view of this position, the Stay Order and the Final Order, dismissing the application and appeal, are recalled and the appeal and stay application are restored to their original numbers. Stay application to come up for consideration on 31st July, 2008. The learned Counsel seeks for out of turn issue of the order. Registry to issue this order out of turn. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2008 (6) TMI 600
Settlement of case - Immunity from penalty ... ... ... ... ..... The export duty/cess in this case is settled at Rs. 52,46,637/-. This amount stands paid. Interest emsp The applicant has paid the interest amount of Rs. 8,46,223/-. Penalty emsp In view of the above discussions, the Bench grants immunity from penalty in excess of Rs. 50,000/- (fifty thousand) to the applicant and grants immunity from penalty to all the co-applicants. Prosecution emsp The Bench grants immunity from prosecution to the applicant and the co-applicants under the Act in so far as this case is concerned. 10. emsp The above immunities are granted under sub-section (1) of Section 127H of the Act. Attention of the applicant is also invited to the provisions of sub section (2) and (3) of Section 127H ibid. 11. emsp This order of settlement shall be void in terms of sub-section (8) of Section 127C of the Act, if the Settlement Commission subsequently finds that it has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts. 12. emsp All concerned are informed accordingly.
-
2008 (6) TMI 599
Confiscation of goods - Misdeclaration of goods ... ... ... ... ..... T0021. For this reason, the Additional Commissioner held that the goods had been misdeclared and accordingly confiscated them with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 33,000/- and imposed penalty of Rs. 16,000/-. The adjudication order was upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) hence this appeal. 2. emsp We have heard both sides. There is no dispute regarding the import of Calibrator in December, 1997 and return for removing defects to the Italian manufacturer and its subsequent re-entry into India. The Italian manufacturer had also confirmed that new machine was despatched to the importer in India by mistake. In the circumstances, there is no reason for us not to accept the explanation of the importer that the receipt of the new machine in October, 2000 was a bona fide mistake, and was not the case of misdeclaration of the goods. We, therefore set aside the impugned order in regard to confiscation, fine and penalty and allow the appeal. (Pronounced in court)
-
2008 (6) TMI 546
Natural justice - validity of impugned order - orders were passed without issuing show cause notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner - Held that: - it does not appear that show cause notice was issued and opportunity of hearing was granted. I find orders were passed in breach of principles of natural justice. Hence, the impugned orders cannot be sustained and thus, are set aside and quashed - petition allowed.
-
2008 (6) TMI 541
Confiscation - Smuggled goods ... ... ... ... ..... rcepted by the Customs Authorities. The Adjudicating Authority absolutely confiscated the goods and imposed penalty of Rs. 25,000/- each on the ground that the goods are smuggled in nature. Respondents filed appeal and Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order of confiscation, however, allowed for released the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 50,000/- and penalty was reduced to Rs. 5,000/-. Revenue rsquo s contention is that goods are smuggled in nature and respondent rsquo s fail to show the proof of legal import into India. Therefore, the goods were rightly confiscated and respondents were liable for higher penalties. We find that Cell Phones are not notified goods under Section 123 of Customs Act and the onus is on Revenue to show that goods in question are smuggled into India. In absence of such evidence, and admittedly the goods were purchased from Chennai, we find no merit in the present appeals and the same are dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2008 (6) TMI 536
Valuation - Contemporaneous import ... ... ... ... ..... he Commissioner in his second order dated 28-9-2003. (b) The value of any brand to be adopted shall not be lower than the value declared by the importer. 14.1 emsp We direct the appellant to determine the duty liability on the above lines and pay the differential duty. This should be done within 3 months from the date of receipt of this order and the payment details should be intimated to the department. The appellant is also directed to file the detailed work sheet determining the duty liability with the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner. 14.2 emsp We direct the jurisdictional Assistant Commissioner/Deputy Commissioner to verify the correctness of the duty liability worked out by the appellant on the above lines, and if any discrepancy is noticed, determine the duty liability by issuing a speaking order on the discrepancy, after hearing the party. 15. emsp The appeal is disposed off on the above terms. (Order pronounced in the open Court on 25-6-2008)
-
2008 (6) TMI 535
Redemption fine and penalty - Quantum of ... ... ... ... ..... the higher demurrage charges the consignment has incurred lying in the docks for about eighteen months. We have also taken into account the fact that there is some shortage in the goods though on balance there is some excess. Taking into account all the attendant facts and circumstances of the case including the fact that the Appellant-Importer has imported the consignment for the first time, we reduce the Redemption Fine to Rs. 1.00 lakh (Rupees one lakh) and reduce the Penalty to Rs. 50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand) only. 6. emsp As regards the Appellant CHA, since there is no evidence establishing his involvement in the undervaluation and misdeclaration of the goods, we are of the view that he needs to be extended the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, we set aside the penalty imposed on him. 7. emsp Accordingly, the Appeal of the Appellant-Importer is partly allowed and the Appeal of the Appellant CHA is allowed in the above terms. (Dictated and pronounced in the open court)
-
2008 (6) TMI 529
Order - Non-speaking order ... ... ... ... ..... do not have the benefit of the reasoning of the original authority for classifying it under CTH 7610. Commissioner (Appeals) should have in all fairness, therefore, sent the matter back to the original authority for fresh adjudication. As regards the Orders-in-Appeals relied upon on behalf of the respondents, it is open to them to place reliance on those orders at the time of hearing before the original authority. 6. emsp In these circumstances, we find the prayer of the Revenue for remand of the case to be reasonable. Accordingly, we set aside the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and remand the matter to the original authority for fresh adjudication/assessment. It goes without saying that the authority shall give due opportunity of hearing to the parties including opportunity to produce evidence in respect of their respective case. 7. emsp In the result, the appeals stand allowed by way of remand. (Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on 11-6-2008)
-
2008 (6) TMI 527
Reference to High Court - Question of law vis-a-vis question of fact ... ... ... ... ..... re not usable as such, how could they retain as cars has not been explained by the revenue. 5. emsp We are also not able to agree with the issue No. (ii) in the application. The very fact that the agreement between the buyer and the seller stipulated that no part should be used as spare parts and importers had offered to mutilate the usable parts clearly shows that what was purchased was only a scrap and there was no intention on the part of the parties to use them as spare parts. Since what was sold was scrap and there was no dispute about that fact, it is for the Revenue to establish that there was a mis-declaration on the part of the importers. The evidence suggests that otherwise. 6. emsp As regards the point No. (iii), burnt/damaged cars do not become second hand cars and therefore, this part is not relevant. Since the application raises only question of facts and not question of law, the application by the Revenue is rejected. (Pronounced in the open Court on 24-6-2008)
-
2008 (6) TMI 525
Challenging order of assessment - estoppel in law - valuation - Held that: - we find no merit in the contention of the Revenue that the importer is estopped from challenging the order of assessment. The data now produced by the Revenue is in respect of import of polyster knitted fabric whereas goods in question are rejected stock lot of polyster knitted fabric. As the data now produced is not in respect of same or similar goods hence we find no merit in these appeals, the same are dismissed
-
2008 (6) TMI 521
Valuation - Enhancement of ... ... ... ... ..... d appeal and the same was allowed. The only contention of Revenue is that value of goods was enhanced which was accepted by the respondent. We find that in the Tribunal rsquo s case Laxmi Colour Lab (supra) after relied upon the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Dunlop India Ltd. and Madras Rubber Factory Ltd. v Union of India and Others reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1566 (S.C.), held as under - ldquo There is no estoppel in law against a party in taxation matter. If a party, in order to clear the goods for customs, has given the classification in accordance with the wishes of the authorities or even under some misapprehension, and if the law allows it a right to ask for refund on proper appraisement and which is actually applied for the party cannot be estopped from making such application and ask for such refund. rdquo 4. emsp In view of the above decision, we find no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2008 (6) TMI 516
Confiscation, penalty and redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... with imported goods and he worked at the direction of the appellant. It is apparent on the face of record that the appellants committed the offence. 4. emsp After hearing both the sides and on perusal of the record, I find that it appears from the record that the appellants imported the goods without following the import formalities and without payment of duty and by showing the importer as actual user. Therefore, confiscation of goods is justified. The appellant claimed as indenter and supplying the goods to various actual users. The certificate issued by the Registrar of Newspapers of India is not disputed. In the facts and circumstances of the case, imposition of penalty on the appellant is also justified. Taking into account involvement of duty, the amounts of fine and penalty are excessive. Accordingly, I reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 50,000/- and penalty to Rs. 25,000/-. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court).
-
2008 (6) TMI 508
Penalty on Customs House Agent ... ... ... ... ..... ry consideration were also liable for penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act. It was not alleged that the appellant had, in relation to any goods, rendered such goods liable to confiscation under Section 113 by any commission or omission or abetment thereof. The Commissioner rsquo s order also does not contain any finding to this effect. The learned Commissioner noted thus ldquo I hence find that Shri L. Sankar and hellip hellip . are liable for penalty under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 for their act and omission in rendering the goods liable to confiscation rdquo . Neither the rdquo act rdquo nor the ldquo omission rdquo was specified. 5. emsp The other case relating to the attempted export of red sander wood logs by M/s. Trus Engineering is no different and, therefore, the aforesaid findings would equally apply to Appeal No. C/268/2005. 6. emsp In the result, the penalties are set aside and these appeals are allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2008 (6) TMI 504
Confiscation - Import of heavy metal scrap ... ... ... ... ..... impugned order was rightly passed. In respect of pre-shipment inspection certificate contention is that, as the scrap coming into India from Iraq it contains unexploded ammunition, therefore, this condition was imposed. As this condition was not complied with confiscation was rightly ordered. 5. emsp Total consignment is of 396.68 M.T. and out of this small quantity of only 4 M.T. is found to be re-rollable scrap. In these circumstances that small quantity of goods which is also scrap, may be of re-rollable quality, cannot make goods liable for confiscation. In respect of pre-shipment inspection certificate we find that as per bill of landing certificate goods were shipped on board on 5-10-2004 and the condition regarding certificate was imposed on 15-10-2004. At the time of shipment there was no such condition and, therefore, confiscation on this ground is also not sustainable. The impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed. (Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court)
-
2008 (6) TMI 498
Confiscation and penalty - Misdeclaration in the Bill of Entry ... ... ... ... ..... hat the respondents even after knowing that the Bill of Entry had been marked to be cleared without examination and appraisement, the importer came forward to make true and complete declaration prior to paying the duty and seeking clearance, which clearly showed the bona fide of the importer. So the Adjudicating Authority accepted the bona fide of the respondents. They made true and complete declaration and Bill of Entry was amended and therefore, the allegation of mis-declaration in the Bill of Entry by the Adjudicating Authority is not sustainable. 5. emsp I agree with the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the act of the respondent establishes bona fide. I also note that there is no mis-declaration in the Bill of Entry and therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly set aside the redemption fine and reduced the penalty. Accordingly, I do not find any merit in the Appeal of the Revenue and the same is rejected. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2008 (6) TMI 497
Refund - Non-challenge of assessment order/Bill of entry ... ... ... ... ..... said model was declared Rs. 27,000/- and the assessing officer had cleared the same. Thus the document was on record at the time of assessment of the present case and it was a mistake in terms of Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the requirement of the said Section 149 is fulfilled in the case. rdquo 4. emsp The learned DR relied upon the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries reported in 2004 (172) E.L.T. 145. In this case, the petitioner paid the duty under protest and filed the refund claim. No appeal was filed against the Bill of Entry. 5. emsp In the present case, the Respondents inadvertently declared the value of Rs. 2,70,000/- instead of Rs. 27,000/-. It appears that it is a case of mistake apparent from record which can be rectified under Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962. So, I do not find any merit in the Appeal of the Revenue. Accordingly, the appeal is rejected. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2008 (6) TMI 493
Demand and penalty - Export obligation - Non-fulfilment of ... ... ... ... ..... Commissioner has no jurisdiction since the importation was effected in Kandla port. The ld. Advocate has cited M/s. Royal Embroideries Pvt. Ltd. rsquo s judgment in support of his contention that no penalty can be imposed. We find that the facts are entirely different and in this case there is deliberate diversion and sale of imported goods in the local market and the penalty is rightly imposable. The ld. Advocate also stated that while confirming the demand, Commissioner has included the amount of duty already paid in respect of goods cleared on payment of duty also. The Commissioner shall communicate the details of duty payable, paid and balance payable to the party to facilitate payment. As regards penalty, we feel that some reduction is warranted and accordingly, penalty on Shri Nilesh D Patel is reduced to Rs. 5 lakhs and on Shri Babubhai Kapuriya to Rs. 15 lakhs. But for the above modifications, the order of the Commissioner is upheld. (Pronounced in Court on 24-6-2008)
|
