Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 122 Records
-
2009 (3) TMI 825
Remission of duty ... ... ... ... ..... se observations, there is no justification for demand of duty especially when there is provision in the Import Policy for destruction of obsolete goods inside the unit simply by informing the Customs or outside the unit with the permission of the Customs. There is also provision for relinquishment of title. In these circumstances, we set aside the impugned order, which demands duty and imposes penalty on the appellants. The impugned order has no merits. Hence, we allow the appeal with consequential relief. rdquo 5.1 emsp In the facts and circumstances, as having held that there is no fault on the part of the appellant, the demand of duty and imposition of penalty, is not justified. Accordingly, for the reasonings as recorded hereinabove, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned order is liable to be set aside and we do so. The appeal is allowed, with consequential relief, if any. (Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing)
-
2009 (3) TMI 824
Confiscation and penalty - Imposition of ... ... ... ... ..... o, the subject goods were tacitly accepted to be non-dutiable-Neither clause lsquo f rsquo nor clause lsquo g rsquo of Section 111 of the Customs Act is applicable to such goods. The learned Commissioner has no case that the aforesaid empty containers were lsquo prohibited goods rsquo . Had those goods been prohibited, permission for clearance would not have been given. On this count also, Section 111(f) and (g) were not applicable. In the result, confiscation of the goods under the above provisions is not sustainable and consequently the redemption fine is liable to be set aside. It is ordered accordingly. Where the goods were not liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act, the steamer agent could not have been held to have, by any commission or omission, rendered them liable to confiscation. In the result, penalty imposed on the appellants is also liable to be set aside. 3. emsp The impugned order is set aside and this appeal is allowed. (Dictated in Court)
-
2009 (3) TMI 823
Refund - Relinquishment of title of goods ... ... ... ... ..... oms Act, 1962 provides that the owner of any imported goods may, at any time before an order for clearance of goods for home consumption under Section 47 or an order for permitting the deposit of goods in a warehouse under Section 60 has been made, relinquish his title to the goods and thereupon he shall not be liable to pay the duty thereon. In the present case the appellant filed an application dated 27-12-2006 to relinquish the title of the goods. On a query from the Bench, the learned Advocate submits that the said application has not been decided. In my view, unless the application for relinquishing the title of the goods under Section 23(2) is decided, the refund application is premature. In view of that impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the original authority to decide the matter afresh after the decision of the application for relinquishing the title of the goods. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. (Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court)
-
2009 (3) TMI 822
Penalty on broker - Imposition of - Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Hearing, adjournment ... ... ... ... ..... broker was called in by the seller of the car to sell his car. The sale of the said car would and could, take place only after the said car is cleared by the customs authorities on discharge of customs duty liabilities. Since it is an admitted position that the broker had produced and given all the documents to the purchaser, it cannot be said that the current appellant, who is a broker, had played any role which would render the car liable for confiscation under the provisions of Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, in order to attract penal provisions of Section 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962, in the absence of any contrary evidence, or statements implicating the appellant. 5.1 emsp Accordingly, in view of the above reasoning, we find that the impugned order imposing penalty on the appellant is not correct and is liable to be set aside and we do so. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed, with consequential relief, if any. (Pronounced in open Court on 18-3-2009)
-
2009 (3) TMI 821
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... lants should be put to terms. 6. emsp On a very careful consideration of the issue, we find that even at the first instance revenue did not accept the transaction value. Once the transaction value is rejected, then they had taken recourse to the Valuation Rules. In this case, all the processes had already been completed by adopting the contemporaneous value. Having done so, in our view again revenue cannot open the assessment. Prima facie, the ratio of the South India Television case cited supra would be applicable to the present appeal. In any case, all the legal contentions can be examined in depth at the time of final hearing. Therefore, we are of the view that the appellants have a strong case on merits. Hence, we order, waiver of the pre-deposit of the entire dues demanded in the impugned order. There shall be no coercive action by revenue till the appeal is disposed of. This stay order shall continue even after expiry of 180 days. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2009 (3) TMI 818
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit ... ... ... ... ..... gricultural sciences, engineering and/or computer science by universities to which they are affiliated. (b) The colleges should have research/academic council of their own to screen and review the research programmes or their research programmes are screened by the Universities. rdquo 3. emsp On going through the papers, we find that the Registrar of the University has certified that the imported goods are needed for research. At this stage, we are of the view that the applicants have prima facie made out a strong case on merits and in view of the Essentiality Certificate. The other issues raised by the Department can be examined at the stage of final hearing. Therefore, we order complete waiver of the pre-deposit of the dues demanded in the impugned order. The stay application is allowed. No coercive measures should be taken by Revenue till the appeal is decided. The stay order will continue to be in force even after lapse of 180 days. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2009 (3) TMI 815
Confiscation - EXIM - Import of used truck - Adjudication/Appeal - Grounds - Penalty - Imposition of - Classification of goods
-
2009 (3) TMI 813
Stay of order - Education cess ... ... ... ... ..... the learned Departmental Representative brought to my attention the Circular No. 26/2007-Cus., dated 20-7-2007 according to which, the Education Cess is payable. She stated that the revenue implication in these cases is very high and prayed for stay of the impugned orders. Further, she relied on the following three case-laws - (i) Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. v. CCE, Salem - 2007 (217) E.L.T. 562 (Tri.-Chennai) (ii) Seshasayee Paper and Boards Ltd. v. CCE, Salem - 2008 (223) E.L.T. 616 (Tri.-Chennai) (iii) Polyspin Ltd. v. CC, Tuticorin - 2007 (214) E.L.T. 347 (Tri.-Chennai) 4. emsp In view of the high revenue implications and the Board rsquo s Circular, which was not taken into account by the decision quoted by the learned Advocate for the respondent, I order stay of the operation of the impugned orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). As the issue has high revenue implications, the matters are listed for hearing on 30th April, 2009. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2009 (3) TMI 808
Valuation - Related person - interconnected units - mutuality of interest - Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962
-
2009 (3) TMI 806
Demand - Limitation - DEPB scrips - Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - bonafideness - stay/dispensation of pre-deposit
-
2009 (3) TMI 804
EXIM - Old/used photocopiers - Valuation ... ... ... ... ..... .T. 425 (T) and M/s. Bosch Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs (A), Mumbai, 2009-TIOL-12-CESTAT-BANG. 5. emsp In the light of the above discussion, we hold that the enhancement of the value of the goods imported cannot be sustained and, accordingly, set it aside. 6. emsp In the result, we hold that the appellants have not contravened either provisions under Section 111(d) or (m) of the Customs Act, set aside the impugned orders and allow the appeals. (Operative part of the order was pronounced in open court on 31-3-2009) Annexure S. No. Appeal No. Appellant Declared value Enhanced value Redemption Fine (Rs.) Penalty (Rs.) 1. C/564/05 Nova Office Systems US 62400 Rs. 27,48,720 (C and F) US 84288 Rs. 37,12,886/- (C and F) 3,50,000/- 75,000 2. C/565/05 United Business Machines US 99830 Rs. 43,87,529 (C and F) US 1,35,900 Rs. 59,72,805/- (C and F) 5,90,000/- 1,00,000 3. C/2/06 Phototech Enterprises US 98970 Rs. 3,59,629/- (C and F) US 141725 Rs. 62,43,000 (C and F) 6,25,000 1,80,000
-
2009 (3) TMI 801
Appeal - Limitation - Delay in filing ... ... ... ... ..... hich means there was a heavy delay on their part in acting upon the impugned order received on 29-9-2008. It is further submitted that the Clerical Assistant in the office of the Consultant, who received the documents from the appellants, did not file appeal with this Tribunal. It is further submitted that he did not even hand over the papers to the Consultant when he quit the job. These submissions of the appellants have, apparently, been made in a haphazard manner without disclosing the necessary particulars. The Clerical Assistant in the office of the Consultant has not been named, nor the date of his resignation mentioned. Above all, there is no affidavit of any Clerical Assistant accompanying these applications. 3. emsp Sufficient cause for condonation of delay of these appeals has not been shown. The Delay Condonation Applications are dismissed and, consequently, the appeals also get dismissed as time-barred. The stay applications are also dismissed. (Dictated in Court)
-
2009 (3) TMI 800
Refund claim without challenge to assessment order ... ... ... ... ..... some clerical error while calculating the duty. In these circumstances the refund was allowed. In the present case goods were assessed to duty and assessment order was passed and appropriate duty was paid. Thereafter the Appellant without challenging the assessment order filed the refund claim claiming the benefit of a Notification. The Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Flock (India) Pvt. Ltd. and Priya Blue Industries Ltd. (supra) held that the refund claim is not an Appeal proceedings and the Officer considering the refund claim cannot sit in Appeal over an assessment made by the Competent Officer. The Officer considering the refund claim also cannot review the assessment order. In view of the above decisions of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court as the Appellant had not challenged the assessment order in pursuance to which duty was paid and filed the refund claim hence we find no merit in this Appeal. The same is dismissed. (Pronounced and dictated in the open court)
-
2009 (3) TMI 798
Appeal by department - Authorization to file - Stay of order - Refund ... ... ... ... ..... ne section to a new section of the office concerned. It is further submitted that the staff in the new section took reasonable time to be fully functional, which incidentally caused delay in the filing of the appeal. It appears, the delay has been satisfactorily explained. The COD application is, therefore, allowed. 3. emsp The surviving application is for stay of operation of the impugned order, wherein the lower appellate authority allowed cash refund of fine and penalty after holding that such refund is not hit by the bar of unjust enrichment. The impugned order inter alia states that refund of fine and penalty as a consequential relief is accepted by the department to be outside the preview of unjust enrichment. Though the order has stated so explicitly, there is no demur against the same in the memo of appeal filed by the Revenue. I further note that the respondents are yet to get cash refund. In these circumstances, the stay application is dismissed. (Dictated in Court)
-
2009 (3) TMI 797
Stay/Dispensation of predeposit - Confiscation and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... CCE, Kochi reported in 2000 (115) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.), wherein the Apex Court had held that once goods confiscated under one clause of Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962, were released on payment of redemption fine, and allowed entry in the market, it is not open to the Customs authorities to initiate separate proceedings under some other clause of the same Section and in the present case, the car was earlier confiscated by the Jt. Commissioner vide his order dated 8-6-2005 for contravention of Section 111(d) and allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine and imposition of penalty and therefore, prima facie the present proceedings for violation of Section 111(m) and 111(o) for misdeclaration of the year of manufacture, misdeclaration of the value and no sale condition is not sustainable. We therefore, waive predeposit of penalty imposed on both the applicants and there shall be stay of recovery till the pendency of these appeals. (Order pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
-
2009 (3) TMI 796
Order - Appealable order ... ... ... ... ..... judication of the dispute or issue. The communication of such order is a mere intimation of the decision arrived at by the authority and that by itself would not amount to lsquo an order rsquo within the meaning of such expression under Section 129(A) of the said Act. 11. emsp Being so, we are of the considered opinion that the impugned communication cannot be made subject matter of appeal before this Tribunal under Section 129A of the said Act. 12. emsp We have also noticed from the records that the respondents have also preferred cross objection allegedly under Section 129A(4) of the said Act. However, the learned advocate for the respondent has fairly submitted that the respondents are not pressing for the said cross objections and crave leave for withdrawal of the same. 13. emsp The Appeal is accordingly rejected. The Cross Objections are allowed to be withdrawn. Accordingly the appeal and the cross-objections stand disposed of. (Dictated and Pronounced in the open Court)
-
2009 (3) TMI 793
Appeal - Limitation - Delay in filing ... ... ... ... ..... it inasmuch as the advocate was aware of the facts of the case. Therefore, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) refused to condone the delay of the appeal. 2. emsp After hearing the Ld. Counsel for the appellant and the Ld. SDR for the respondent, I am unable to find fault with the view taken by the lower appellate authority. The CHA had no back pain before 10-5-08 and could have instructed his advocate to file the appeal. He might have taken rest as per medical advice from 10-5-08 to 3-6-08, but that did not stand in the way of his instructing the advocate over telephone or otherwise for filing the appeal. As rightly observed by the Commissioner (Appeals), the advocate was obviously conversant with the facts of the case. Again, as rightly observed by him, the explanation by the party before him was not sufficient for condoning the delay. Apparently, the appeal was filed in a haphazard manner. 3. emsp The impugned order is sustained and this appeal is dismissed. (Dictated in Court)
-
2009 (3) TMI 786
Customs House Agent license - Suspension of ... ... ... ... ..... ts and circumstances of the case, since no Show Cause Notice under the Act has also been issued by the Customs Authorities and the answers to the questions put for consideration in the cited decision of the Hon rsquo ble Delhi High Court clearly being in an Appeal under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 and the present case being of mere suspension of a Licence, where no Adjudication Proceedings have been conducted as yet, the Hon rsquo ble Delhi High Court decision would respectfully not apply. The decisions of the Hon rsquo ble Calcutta High Court and Hon rsquo ble Mumbai High Court clearly further and support the Appellants rsquo contentions before us. The impugned order of Suspension is set aside and the Appeal is allowed with consequential reliefs. The CHA Licence is directed to be made operative forthwith and the Customs Authorities are free to issue a Show Cause Notice and conduct enquiry under the Regulations. Ordered accordingly. (Pronounced in court on 25-3-2009)
-
2009 (3) TMI 785
Confiscation - Vehicle import - Type approval certificate ... ... ... ... ..... 1-12-2008 on the subject mentioned above and to convey the approval of the competent authority to the exemption from country of origin/manufacture and acceptance of the Type Approval Certificate issued by an accredited agency outside the country of manufacture/origin of goods i.e. Brussels, for import of one number Toyota Land Cruiser 200 series RHD vehicle. rdquo 5. emsp Now that the appellant stands exempted from furnishing Type Approval Certificate of accredited agency in the country of manufacture/origin of goods and that the Type Approval Certificate produced by him has been accepted, it cannot be said that the import of the vehicle is in breach of any restriction/prohibition. It would follow that the vehicle is not liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and, consequently, the appellant is not liable to penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act. 6. emsp The Commissioner rsquo s order is set aside and this appeal is allowed. (Dictated in Court)
-
2009 (3) TMI 784
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Penalty - Confiscation of conveyance - Smuggling ... ... ... ... ..... n is used for transportation of the smuggled goods. The goods were loaded in the truck with the consent of the driver i.e., agent of the owner of the vehicle in question. In these circumstances and in view of the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Kripal Singh (supra), I find no infirmity in the impugned Order whereby the truck in question was confiscated and released on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 40,000.00. 6. emsp In respect of the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, I find that the Appellant is neither claiming the goods nor is there any evidence to show that the Appellant has any link with the smuggled goods. In these circumstances, I find merit in the contention of the Appellant that the imposition of penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not sustainable. Hence, the impugned Order imposing penalty is set aside. The Appeal is disposed off as indicated above. (Pronounced and dictated in the open court.)
........
|