|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 122 Records
-
2009 (3) TMI 702
Smuggled goods - Confiscation, fine and penalty ... ... ... ... ..... n the circumstances of each case. In the present case, the respondent is dealing in foreign goods and he has admitted that the goods are of foreign origin purchased without payment of duty. So, the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals) that the Revenue failed to discharge the onus of burden to prove under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 is not sustainable. 6. emsp Accordingly, order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is set aside and the order of the original authority is upheld. However, I agree with the submission of the learned Advocate that the quantum of redemption fine and penalty are excessive. After considering the facts and circumstances of the case and that the respondent is a mere trader, I am of the opinion that the amounts of fine and penalty are required to be reduced. Therefore, redemption fine and penalty are reduced to Rs. 30,000/- and Rs. 15,000/- respectively. Appeal filed by the revenue is allowed in above terms. (Dictated and pronounced in the Open Court)
-
2009 (3) TMI 685
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Penalty - DEPB - Market enquiry ... ... ... ... ..... V will not be verified by the Custom House. The Board issued this Circular as a consequence of amendment to para 7.36 A of the Hand-Book of Procedures, Vol-I in the Annual Review of the Exim Policy 1997-2002. As a result, declaration of PMV was not required for the products for which value cap existed irrespective of the DEPB rate of the product. In the case of the watches in question, value cap of Rs. 600/- piece is provided against Product Group Electronics (Product Code 83, Sl. No. 30). 7. emsp Moreover, we note that an amount of Rs. 12,60,000/- approx. is legitimately due to the applicants as DEPB benefit and this amount is not under dispute. 8. emsp Prima facie, the applicants have made out a strong prima facie case for the complete waiver of the pre-deposit of the penalty imposed on them. We, therefore, dispense with the pre-deposit of the penalty of Rs. 10,00,000/- imposed on the applicants and stay recovery thereof pending disposal of the appeal. (Pronounced in court)
-
2009 (3) TMI 678
Stay of order - Customs House Agents licence ... ... ... ... ..... r licence to be used by one Shri Ravindra Maruti Mansukh for a monetary consideration of Rs. 5000/- per vehicle. These facts became evident to the Commissioner from the DRI rsquo s report. The report was received on 8-12-08 and the order of suspension of CHA licence was issued on 12-12-2008. There was no delay. The order shows that an enquiry is contemplated against the CHA. Only a little over two months have elapsed since the suspension of the licence. In the circumstances, after hearing both sides, we are not impressed with the plea for staying the operation of the Commissioner rsquo s order. As a matter of fact, any stay of the Commissioner rsquo s order will have the effect of stalling the enquiry contemplated against the CHA. In the circumstances, the application is dismissed. 2. emsp We are told that the applicant has also filed another application for out of turn hearing and disposal of his appeal. We shall consider that application in due course. (Pronounced in court)
-
2009 (3) TMI 670
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Restoration of appeal ... ... ... ... ..... ification for restoration of the appeal. We also note that the Tribunal rsquo s stay order read with the order of Hon rsquo ble High Court Mumbai, when the writ petition was rejected only with extension of period, it will not be appropriate for us to allow restoration, in absence of compliance with the Hon rsquo ble High Court rsquo s order. The interim orders passed by the Tribunal and Hon rsquo ble High Court has to be shown some respect and carry legal sanctity and it cannot be left to the whims and fancy of the assessee to comply with such order, as and when they feel comfortable. The result and consequence of such non-compliance of the order has to be faced by the assessee and they cannot come to the Court after a long gap of around 7 years to seek relief against the action, which stand taken against them as a legal consequence of non-compliance with the interim order. 8. emsp In view of the above, we reject the restoration application. (Pronounced in court on 23-3-2009)
-
2009 (3) TMI 666
Ship stores - Foreign going vessel ... ... ... ... ..... coastal run. Since a dead vessel was towed by TOPAZ, the assessment is in order. 4. emsp We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. As rightly claimed by the learned counsel for the appellants, the vessel was never converted to a coastal run and the dead vessel which was towed by the tug was actually imported cargo which was cleared on payment of duty after bill of entry was filed with Bhavnagar customs. The vessel had not been cleared for home consumption till it reached Alang. Therefore, we find considerable force in the contention of the appellants that the vessel was never converted into a coastal run and towing of a dead imported vessel not yet cleared for home consumption on its way to Alang via Visakhapatnam did not change the character of the tug from foreign going vessel to a coastal vessel. Accordingly, we allow the appeals with consequential relief to the appellants. Cross objections filed by the Revenue also gets disposed of. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2009 (3) TMI 631
Confiscation of goods - redemption, fine and penalty was imposed - When that possession is transferred, by virtue of the provisions contained in S.180 to the Customs authorities, there is no fresh seizure under the Customs Act, accused lost possession of the goods when the police took custody of it, so there is no fresh seizure under the Customs Act. There is no question of law much less any substantial question arises for consideration in this Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. Hence, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal is dismissed
-
2009 (3) TMI 630
Anti-dumping duty on import of Float Glass - petitioner disputes his liability to pay antidumping duty, as, according to him, reflective glass is excluded from the description of Float Glass, in respect of which anti-dumping duty has been imposed by Ext. P3 - petitioner made reference to Exts. P11 & P12. According to him these documents would show that reflective glass, were allowed to be imported in certain other ports in the country without levying anti-dumping duty - Held that:- if there has been any omission on the part of the Department in levying duty at any place that will not justify interference levy of duty, if it is otherwise legal, court will not be justified in granting any relief in the writ petition and it is accordingly dismissed, it is clarified that the findings in the judgment will not stand in the way of the petitioner agitating his liability before the appellate Forum that is available under the statute, which, shall decide the matter untrammelled by any of the observations made above, writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 606
Principles of natural justice - right of the petitioner has been affected since a direction has been given to deposit 25% of the total amount of duty confirmed and penalty imposed - petitioner was entitled to an opportunity of hearing - respondent is directed to consider the application for stay afresh by passing a reasoned order - writ petition is allowed
-
2009 (3) TMI 604
Seizure - right of lien over goods - of third parties with whom there was no privity of contract - premise owned by the Kolkata Port Trust, for rent due to the Kolkata Port Trust, from its lessees – writ application to a Larger Bench for a conclusive determination of the issue of whether Section 59 of the Major Port Trust Act, 1963 - confers on Kolkata Port Trust, a right of lien on goods of third parties, irrespective of whether the rent accrued in respect of those goods and irrespective of whether the owner of those goods had any privity of contract
-
2009 (3) TMI 590
Penalty – abetment - respondent is not remotely concerned with the act of import or diverting the goods in the local market - He only arranged office for the company on rent and introduced some person before the act of import - Tribunal rightly observed that the act on the part of the respondent cannot be considered an act or omission to act rendering the imported goods liable to confiscation - no question of law arises in this appeal – Appeal dismissed
-
2009 (3) TMI 586
Appeal - aggrieved person - M/s. Shiva Enterprises, the respondent No. 4, is the importer and the petitioner was a purchaser who had subsequently sold it to M/s. Shyam Traders - M/s. Shyam Traders by a declaration dated 17th February, 2009 had declared that they have no objection to take and/or claim release of 191 bundles of the goods which have been seized by the Customs Authorities at Gorakhpur under Seizure Case No. 10/09 dated 25-1-2009, by M/s. Pashupati Enterprises, Kolkata, that is, the petitioner - Held that: - the petitioner not a party aggrieved - neither the importer nor the person from whom the goods have been seized - no merit in the writ petition - petition dismissed
-
2009 (3) TMI 530
Custom House Agents - consignments covered under the Shipping Bills filed by the respondents, on examination, revealed lower quality goods - alleged to have committed breach of Regulations 14(a), 14 (d), 14(l) and 20(7) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 1984 - respondents are out of business for about one year and five months - Tribunal modified the Commissioner’s order and directed that the revocation order - cease to be in operation - Now respondents can transact business as Custom House Agents – Held that: - taking a lenient view - violation of the CHALR is not very serious in nature and borders on to procedural irregularities - no substantial question of law involved - respondents can transact business as Custom House Agents.
-
2009 (3) TMI 524
EOU - The assessees are 100% EOU engaged in the manufacture of grey cotton fibres. Proceedings were initiated by way of show cause notice dated 9-9-2002 demanding duty of Rs. 1,23,99,528/- on the ground that clearances made by the assessees were not exempted from payment of Basic Customs Duty, Countervailing Duty (CVD) and Special Additional Duty (SAD) till the issue of Notification No. 28/2001-C.E., dt. 16-5-2001 and therefore, duty should have been paid for the period from 1-4-2001 to 16-5-2001. Held that - Clearance by EOU to DFRC holders treated as goods not allowed to be sold in India "as per Tribunal decision of Maruti Cottex Ltd. v. CCE 2008 -TMI - 53645 - CESTAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, BANGALORE. Supply of goods to DFRC holders considered as deemed exports as per EXIM Policy. Demand not sustainable.
-
2009 (3) TMI 523
Prosecution – Smuggling - articles were seized under Section 110 of the Customs Act on the reasonable belief that the same have been smuggled into India. On the basis of the seizure, complaint under Section 135 of the Customs Act was registered against the petitioner wherein it was averred that on 11-4-1991 the residential premises of the petitioner as well as his personal search was conducted in which the aforementioned contraband articles were recovered. Held that – since conviction of petitioner stands, petitioner directed to pay a fine of Rs. One lac.
-
2009 (3) TMI 479
Demand-Limitation- The main appellant, M/s. Allied Glasses Pvt. Ltd. imported 9 consignments and filed Bills of Entry declaring the items as Glazing Glass and claiming classification under Chapter Heading 7005 and produced DFRC licence to clear the same. Held that- As regards the consignment covered by the Bill of Entry No. 110490 dated 10-11-2003, which was subject matter of seizure and confiscation, we observe that all the issues have to be considered afresh by the Commissioner on merits as well as on limitation after taking into account the above submission made by both sides. To enable the same, we remit the matter to the Commissioner for issue of fresh order after granting reasonable opportunity of hearing. We offer no comments on merits of the case in respect of this consignment. All the appeals are disposed of by setting aside the penalties imposed on all the appellants and setting aside the demand relating to 8 consignments and remitting the issues relating to the seized consignment for fresh consideration in the above terms.
-
2009 (3) TMI 478
Valuation- Invoice Value- The lower authority proceeded against the respondent for non-fulfillment of the pre-import condition of minimum one year possession and use abroad. Moreover, the credibility of invoice was also doubted. The invoice did not contain important details like year of manufacture, odometer reading, specification of the vehicle, etc. which are normally available in all transactions related to car. Hence, the lower authority confiscated the car valued at Rs. 7,73,893/- under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act read with Section 3(3) of the FT (D&R) Act, 1992. However, redemption option was given on payment of Rs. 2,00,000/- and personal penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed. Commissioner (Appeals) reduce the redemption fine and penalty to Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs. 50,000/- respectively. Held that- We do not find any infirmity in his order. In these circumstances, we reject revenue’s appeal.
-
2009 (3) TMI 468
Refund- Documents- The petitioner had imported a Toyota Land Cruiser Prado car. In respect of aforesaid vehicle, proceedings under the Customs Act were initiated and an adjudication order was passed and the petitioner was called upon to pay duty, fine and penalty. He paid the amount due and the vehicle was also released. Remittance made by petitioner or identity of the person who remitted or amount that is due to be refunded to petitioner is not disputed. Only contention against the petitioner is that TR6 Challan he produced was only an attested copy. Held – it is purely a technical contention which cannot be accepted. Petitioner complied with requirement under C.B.E. & C. Circular F.No. 275/37/2K-CX. 8A, dated 02.01.2002. thus refund allowed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 465
Car Import- Connected appeals are filed against the orders of the Tribunal upholding the order of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) lifting the condition imposed by the adjudicating authority against sale of imported car for two years from the date of import. Respondents imported cars claiming TR benefit. However, in the course of adjudication the department found that imported vehicles were not used by the importers for the required minimum period of one year and so much so respondents were not entitled to import under the Transfer of Residence Rules. Held that- importers have not been given TR benefit for imported cars, restriction introduced by adjudicating authority against sale of imported cars for two years was rightly cancelled by Commissioner and re-confirmed by Tribunal.
-
2009 (3) TMI 464
Cenvat Credit- The connected appeals arise from orders of the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal holding that appellants are not entitled to claim cenvat credit on additional customs duty payable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act that was debited in the pass book issued under the DEPB Scheme. Held that- In fact if the credit available in the pass book is less than the additional customs duty payable under Section 3, the importer can pay the difference in duty in cash and avail credit to that extent. While we agree with the view expressed by the Tribunal in the above reported decision, we find that entirely conflicting view is expressed in the clarification issued by the Central Board of Customs and Excise. If the clarification is treated as applicable for prior periods as well and other importers who have availed exemption on additional customs duty payable under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act are granted cenvat credit, we see no reason why the same should be denied to appellants. While upholding the view of the Tribunal we remand the case to the adjudicating authority for getting clarification from the Board of Customs and Excise and for granting the relief to the appellants if similar other importers are allowed to take cenvat credit based on the clarification issued above. However, if the clarification is not retrospectively applied to other importers, then the appellants also shall not be entitled to the benefit.
-
2009 (3) TMI 454
Buttons- Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.- The appellant imported parts of snap buttons and cleared the same at ‘nil’ rate of duty availing the benefit of exemption Notification No. 21/2002, Sl. No. 140. A bond was executed for producing proof of re-export within 3 months from the date of import. Subsequently, proceedings were initiated against the appellants on the ground that the said exemption notification is not applicable to parts of snap buttons. The lower authorities confirmed the demand of Rs.27,52,846/- being the duty foregone on the imported goods. The appellants were aggrieved over the order of the Original Authority and therefore, they approached the Commissioner (Appeals) for relief. The Commissioner (Appeals) passed the impugned order and upheld the order of the Original Authority. The appellants are aggrieved over the impugned order. Hence they have come before the Tribunal for relief. Held that- The garments had also been exported, even though the Notification gives exemption to button only. In the circumstances of the case, the benefit to be extended to parts. The snap button consists of 4 parts, a single part in isolation does not have any use at all. If one part is imported, all the other parts also, have necessarily to be imported for use. In such circumstances, the part also would be covered by entry No. 140. Any other interpretation would lead to absurdity. Moreover, the fact that the parts of the snap buttons had been used in the garments and exported is not disputed. In our view the appellants had fulfilled the conditions of the relevant Notification by which the goods imported have to be used in the exported goods and thereafter exported. As long as this condition had been fulfilled, no duty can be demanded on the imported goods. There is no merit in the order demanding duty foregone. Hence, we set aside the same and allow the appeal with consequential relief.
|
