|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 122 Records
-
2009 (3) TMI 1046
... ...
... ... ..... n of foreign currency for failure to declare, fine amounts and penalty amounts have been reduced. Following the ratio of the Tribunal in Philip Fernandes Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Mumbai 2001 (131) ELT 250 (Tri.Mumbai) and Halithu Ibrahim Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Airport), Chennai 2005 (183) ELT 307 (Tri.Chennai) and having regard to the value of the goods being about 58 lakhs, we reduce the fine from ₹ 32,00,000/- to ₹ 7,50,000/- (Rupees seven lakhs and fifty thousand only) and penalty from ₹ 5,00,000/- to ₹ 1,00,000/- (Rupees one lakh only). We are informed foreign currency seized from the appellant-passenger has been sold and ₹ 56,00,000/- Indian currency has been realized. Out of such sale, the prayer of the appellant for return of the sale proceeds after deducting the fine of ₹ 7,50,000/- and penalty of ₹ 1 lakh, is allowed. 3. The appeal is thus partly allowed as above. ( Dictated and pronounced in open court )
-
2009 (3) TMI 1045
... ...
... ... ..... ₹ 5,000 (Rupees Five thousand only). The appeal is allowed on the above terms. 5. In the above findings, the reasons for not accepting the Chartered Engineer's certificate for enhancing the assessable value has been clearly spelt out by the Commissioner (Appeals). No valid reason has adduced to interfere with the said findings of the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals), however, upheld the confiscation for having imported second-hand photocopiers without the required licence. Taking into account the fact that it was the first time import by the Respondent, and taking into account the enhancement of value not upheld by him, the Commissioner (Appeals) has shown leniency by reducing the redemption fine and penalty. He has, particularly, recorded that the Respondent has not mis-declared any description. Under these circumstances, we do not find any reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). 6. Appeal by the department is rejected.
-
2009 (3) TMI 1035
... ...
... ... ..... epresentation to the Advisory Board. But, in the case on hand, we are pained to note that though the petitioner/detenu has requested for correct translated copies of the documents and also to furnish copies of certain other relied upon documents, they were supplied only on 14.7.2008, i.e. after the meeting of the Advisory Board on 10.7.2008, thus defeating the very purpose of the request made on the part of the petitioner/detenu and thus has caused much prejudice to the petitioner/detenu. 16. Though many other grounds have been raised by the learned senior counsel for the petitioner/detenu, since the above discussed grounds are sufficient to hold the impugned detention order as bad in law, we feel it not necessary to take all such other grounds for discussion. In the result, this Habeas Corpus Petition is allowed, setting aside the impugned order of detention. The petitioner/detenu is ordered to be set at liberty forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other case.
-
2009 (3) TMI 999
EOU - refund of credit on inputs - Tribunal hold that there is nothing in the Cenvat Credit Rules which prohibits 100% EOUs availing Cenvat credit. Rule 5 of the said Rules provides for refund of credit availed by the exporter where they do not utilize the goods as inputs for manufacture of 100% export - decision in the case of COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE Versus ANZ INTERNATIONAL [2008 (6) TMI 155 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] contested, where it was held that EOU is entitled to take credit on the duty of the inputs procured indigenously and when they were not in a position to utilize the same, they are entitled for refund - Held that: - decision in the above case upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2009 (3) TMI 996
... ...
... ... ..... n Reddy, JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 977
... ...
... ... ..... he Commissioner who passed the impugned order levying a redemption fine of ₹ 18 lakhs in lieu of confiscation. Since the gold had already been sold by the department, he directed that sale proceeds of the same be released to the passenger after deduction of fine, duty and penalty. Hence this appeal by the passenger against quantum of fine and the appeal by the Revenue for enhancement thereof. 3. We have heard both sides. The value of the gold at the time of seizure was about ₹ 36 lakhs. The fine in lieu of confiscation thereof is about 50 of the above value, which is very excessive. Further, the gold has already been sold by the department and the sale proceeds realized in 2005. Keeping the above factors in mind, we reduce the fine in lieu of confiscation to ₹ 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only). Appeal No. C/388/08 is thus partly allowed as above. As a consequence, Appeal No. C/383/08 of the Revenue is rejected. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2009 (3) TMI 974
... ...
... ... ..... ferred in the show cause notice; (ii) return of the computer CPUs and non-relied upon documents in original and (iii) allow inspection of the originals of the relied upon documents, for which act of kindness, we shall be ever obliged.” 9. In view of the fact that a representation has been made to the Customs authorities, which expressly relies upon the circulars mentioned above, at this stage, the Court is of the opinion that the respondents should consider the same and pass appropriate orders, particularly in the light of the said circulars as well as law declared by the Allahabad High Court. The respondents shall indicate their position “through a speaking order” in case the petitioner’s request is being declined ? within two weeks from today. 10. The writ petition and the accompanying application are disposed of in the above terms. 11. All rights and contentions of the parties are hereby reserved. 12. Order dasti to the parties.
-
2009 (3) TMI 910
conviction and the order of sentence for the offence, punishable under Section 135 of the Customs Act - appeal dismissed - Held that:- The concurrent findings, recorded by the Courts below, based on the correct appreciation of the cogent, convincing, reliable and trustworthy evidence of Davinder Singh, Inspector Customs, (PW-1), who deposed with regard to the recovery of gold biscuits, aforesaid, from Swinder Singh, (since deceased), who was accompanied by Sucha singh, revision-petitioner, Kulmohan Singh, Superintendent Customs, (PW-2), who also made a similar statement, and Mange Ram, Inspector, (PW-3) of Border Security Force, coupled with the voluntary confessional statements made by the revision-petitioner, under Section 108 of the Act that the accused was guilty of the offence, punishable under Section 135 of the Act, do not suffer from any illegality or perversity.
Thus the revision-petition, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the order of sentence dated 16-12-1999, rendered by the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Amritsar, and the judgment dated 30-9-2002, rendered by the Appellate Court, affirming the judgment of the trial Court, are upheld
-
2009 (3) TMI 905
Sale by bid - Held that:- It is only upon the full amount being paid that a delivery order will be issued to the bidder to receive the goods. Clearly understanding these terms and conditions, the appellants responded to the letter of the respondents dated 26-9-08 with the observations that they are in receipt of the acceptance letter dated 26-9-08 regarding confirmation of the above-mentioned lot of Wheel Sets. This letter is followed by the letter of Sankar Chatterjee dated 3-10-08 and another letter dated 6-10-08 in which it is again reiterated that the appellants are successful bidder for the above lot. The sale has been confirmed. Thereafter, it is stated that the deliveries be made to the appellants after payment duly recording the pieces and the weight delivered. Having made such a request the appellants have sought to challenge the action of the respondents on the ground that there has been no confirmation of the auction. We are thus of the considered opinion that there is sufficient material on the record to justify the conclusion reached by the Learned Single Judge. Appeal dismissed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 865
EXIM - REP Licence - Promissory estoppel - Scheme notified for purchase of Exim scrips at premium of 20% of sale value
-
2009 (3) TMI 858
EXIM - Photocopier - Import licence, requirement of ... ... ... ... ..... 0 1,15,000 3. C/247/05 Sree Balaji Office Equipment 11,00,000 3,00,000 4. C/186/06 Office Devices 4,00,000 1,15,000 5. C/43/06 Metro Engineering Works 4,40,000 1,20,000 6. C/21/06 Sai Enterprises 3,40,000 95,000 7. C/197/06 Pallav Enterprises 18,00,000 5,00,000 8. C/172/06 Aditya Digital Imaging Solutions 3,80,000 1,00,000 9. C/88/06 Vijay Traders 3,80,000 1,10,000 10. C/89/06 Vijay Traders 4,00,000 1,15,000 11. C/90/06 Mech and Tech 3,70,000 1,00,000 12. C/20/06 L.V. Enterprises 5,00,000 1,40,000 13. C/04/06 S.S. International 3,75,000 1,10,000 14. C/03/06 Sri Venkatesh Enterprises 21,00,000 6,00,000 15. C/239/06 R.S. Enterprises 8,00,000 2,30,000 16. C/293/07 Vijay Traders 2,85,306 28,530 17. C/294/07 Mech and Tech 1,91,734 19,173 18. C/295/07 Mech Tech 2,01,506 20,150 19. C/237/06 Vardhatnan Trading Co. 3,40,000 98,000 20. C/253/06 Aditya Digital Imaging Solutions 4,65,000 1,30,000 21. C/49/06 Sharma Associates 3,80,000 1,10,000 22. C/93/06 Mech and Tech 5,00,000 1,35,000
-
2009 (3) TMI 857
Import of goods of Afghanistan origin - Exemption ... ... ... ... ..... that no report confirming the suspicion of the department about the genuineness of the documents produced is forthcoming. The respondents have submitted before the learned Commissioner that there were frequent changes of the officials in the Afghan administration and therefore a new officer (other than the officer whose name was indicated to DRI) signing such certificate cannot be held against the importers. We find that the Commissioner has given careful consideration to the documents placed before him and come to the conclusion that substantial benefit of exemption cannot be denied merely on certain clerical mistakes or omission in the certificates produced. Even at this stage, no evidence has been produced to doubt the authenticity of the documents produced by the importers before the assessing authorities. 8. emsp Under these circumstances, we do not fine any reason to interfere with the orders of the Commissioner. Appeals filed by the Department are, therefore, rejected.
-
2009 (3) TMI 845
EXIM - Old/used photocopiers - Valuation - Misdeclaration of value - enhancement of value - confiscation
-
2009 (3) TMI 842
Confiscation - Misdeclaration ... ... ... ... ..... tion 111(d) of the Act. 4. emsp Now, we take up the issue of contravention of Section 111(m) for mis declaration of value. Both the appellants above named accepted the enhance of value by the Commissioner. Hence the findings of misdeclaration of value and consequent contravention of provisions of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 are sustained. We, therefore, uphold the confiscation of the goods. However, since the charge of contravention of Section 111(d) has been set aside, we reduce the redemption fine in lieu of confiscation imposed on M/s. Prompt Copier Pvt. Ltd. to Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) and the fine on M/s. Globex Accessories to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only). Penalties on Prompt Copier Pvt. Ltd. and Globex Accessories are reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) and Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only) respectively. The appeals are partly allowed as above. (Operative part of the order was pronounced in open Court on 31-3-2009)
-
2009 (3) TMI 841
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... we do not find that there is any provision for demanding duty on the Capital Goods, which have been put to use and also the raw materials, which have been put to use. The Development Commissioner has also given the De-bonding order. The Capital Goods are liable to duty on clearance from the warehoused premises and the duty will be on the depreciated value taking into account the date of import. It appears that from the date of import till the time of de-bonding, a period of 11 years have elapsed. In view of the instructions on the subject, the depreciation itself will come to 100 . Prima facie, the applicants have made out a strong case on merits. Hence, we order complete waiver of the pre-deposit of the dues demanded in the impugned order. The stay applications are allowed. No coercive measures should be taken by Revenue till the appeals are decided. The Stay order will continue even after lapse of 180 days. Appeals to come up in turn. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2009 (3) TMI 840
Confiscation - Penalty ... ... ... ... ..... ct, 1962 and the confiscation there of under the Customs Act has been upheld by dismissal of the appellant rsquo s appeal under the Customs Act and the subsequent dismissal of the application for restoration of the Customs appeal. We therefore, uphold the confiscation of the gold bars and the jewellery. As regards the penalty, we note that penalties have been imposed both under the Customs Act and Gold Control Act and also note that the plea that jewellery was declared is a new plea which was not relied upon during the proceedings of the adjudicating authority. Therefore, the penalty which is in respect of gold bars as well as jewellery cannot be fully set aside in its entirety. However, having regard to the fact that the Gold Control Act which was repealed almost 18 years ago, we reduce the penalty imposed on the appellants under the Gold Control Act from Rs. 35,000/- to Rs. 5,000/-. 3. emsp The appeal is thus partly allowed. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2009 (3) TMI 838
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - DEPB fraud ... ... ... ... ..... allabh Design Products - 2007 (219) E.L.T. 73 (P and H) (iv) Paramount Steel Ltd. v. CC, Amritsar - 2008 (223) E.L.T. 593 (Tri.-Del.) 3.1 emsp In all these decisions, it has been held that when the assessee is not a party to the fraud in respect of DEPB scrips, duty cannot be demanded from him and further, no penalty can be levied. 4. emsp On going through the facts of the case, we find that even the CBI undertook an enquiry and it is clearly stated that the applicants have not been implicated in the same. There is no finding that the applicants were part of the fraud. In these circumstances and also in view of the above mentioned case-laws, the applicants have prima facie strong case on merits hence, we order full waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty/interest/penalties demanded in the impugned order. No coercive measures should be taken by Revenue till the appeals are decided. The stay order will continue even after lapse of 180 days. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2009 (3) TMI 831
Provisional assessment - Knowledge of exporter - Sampling - Procedure - Evidence - Test report - Export - Misdeclaration - Proof - Demand - Limitation
-
2009 (3) TMI 829
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... y indicates that Canara Bank has moved to DRT, Bangalore for recovery of their dues and the Presiding Officer has issued a decree in favour of the bank, directing the appellant to deposit the title deeds of the immovable property and part of movable property with the DRT. We find that in view of this, the applicant has made out a case on severe financial hardships in depositing the amount of duty demand, even on the raw materials. 5.3 emsp We are of the considered opinion that the application for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved needs to be allowed, only on the ground of severe financial hardship. Stay Application is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeal. On oral submissions made by both sides and noticing that the amount involved in this case is around Rs. 5.56 crores, we direct the registry to list the appeal for final hearing on 10th July 2009. (Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing)
-
2009 (3) TMI 828
Import for use in leather industry - Notification No. 45/94-Cus. ... ... ... ... ..... have been produced and even these affidavits are general in nature and are not specific with regard to imported goods and not related to goods imported under the Bill of Entry dt. 30-1-96. There is no correlation between the contents of these affidavits and the goods mentioned in the Bill of Entry, with reference to invoices/packing lists etc. The invoices of M/s. Foot Connections and M/s. Multy Leathers also cannot be related to the goods covered by the Bill of Entry under which the appellants imported goods as the invoices only refer to ldquo footwear insole material rdquo with some reference to quantities. In these circumstances, the appellants cannot be held to have conclusively proved that the goods covered with the Bill of Entry had been sold to traders in the leather industry. Even before us, no such evidence is put forth by the appellants. Hence we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeals. (Operative part of the order was pronounced in open court on 23-3-2009)
........
|
