|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 122 Records
-
2009 (3) TMI 440
Notification No. 8/97-C.E., dated 1-3-1997- The Notification No. 8/97-C.E., dated 1-3-1997, exempts finished products manufactured in a 100% EOU wholly from the raw materials produced or manufactured in India and allowed to be sold in India from so much of the duty of excise leviable thereon u/s 3 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 as is in excess of an amount equal to the duty of excise leviable u/s 3 of the Act on like goods produced or manufactured in India other than in a 100% EOU. The contention of the respondent was that manufacturer manufactured Hydrogen Peroxide, removed from the factory to DTA, from raw materials which are wholly produced in India. The said contention was not accepted by the original adjudicating authority. It was held that the respondent imported a number of other raw materials. It is the contention of the respondent that all these items are consumables and they are not raw materials. Adjudicating authority dismissed the contentions of the respondents against which they were in appeal to ld. Commissioner (Appeals). Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide impugned order allowed the appeal of the respondent herein and set aside the order-in-original. Held that- we find that the items which were imported by the respondent and consumed during the course of manufacturing of the finished products viz. Hydrogen Peroxide, these items seem to be consumables and not raw materials. Revenue’s appeal is rejected.
-
2009 (3) TMI 396
Liability of importer to pay demurrage charges - the importer/consignee of goods cannot avoid liability to pay demurrage charges to the warehousing/port or airport authorities even though the goods may have been illegally detained in the Customs Area/Bonded Warehouse by the Customs authority. There cannot be an invariable assumption of customs’ departments - in this case, DRI’s liability to pay such demurrage or charges, in every case where the detained goods are eventually cleared, upon the importer succeeding. The contentions of the respondents have, therefore, to be upheld in so far as the liability of the petitioner to pay demurrage charges are concerned for the period up to adjudication process, the petitioner can have no cause of action. - The court is also of the opinion that having agitated the same issue, in the previous proceeding, and being aware that full waiver is not permissible, the writ petitioner could not have approached the court again, having withdrawn the previous petition, on the same cause of action. Besides, the petitioner has neither attacked any policy on which waiver is granted or refused; not does it voice a grievance based on mala fides. For these reasons, the reliefs claimed by it cannot be granted. - The writ petitions have to, for the above reasons fail; they are accordingly dismissed,
-
2009 (3) TMI 395
Export/loading on vessel goods without “let export order” – Penalty – Exporter having no knowledge about same, not being informed by shipping line, but filing shipping bill before those dates - The exporter were not going to gain anything by loading the containers without customs clearance. The goods under export were neither prohibited good nor Customs duty was attracted upon their export. There is also no misdeclaration of any kind alleged in the Shipping Bill, which was filed before loading of the consignment on the vessel. - The conduct of the exporter in the present case does not indicate that they had acted deliberately in defiance of law or were guilty of conduct contumacious or dishonest or acted in conscious disregard of their obligation. - The subject goods, loaded on the vessel without the “Let Export Order from the proper officer of Customs, were not placed under seizure or were not assessed provisionally at the time of export. – Confiscation and fine is set aside - the responsibility of the physical loading of the containers is primarily of the Shipping Line - The Shipping Line should have “Shut Out” the consignment included in the loading list, for which the Shipping Bill duly passed by the proper officer of Customs was not handed over to it. But they failed to do. Hence, the penalty is imposable on them for violating the provisions of Section 40 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, taking into consideration the submissions made by the Shipping. Line, I am inclined to take a lenient view and accordingly reduce the penalty from Rs. 7,00,000/- to Rs. 3,50,000/-. - The appeal filed by the exporter is allowed in full. The appeal filed by the Shipping Line in partially allowed
-
2009 (3) TMI 394
Claim for drawback - The adjudicating authority having given a categorical finding that the petitioner was not entitled to the duty drawback claim for availing the benefit under the Notification No. 67/98-Cus. (N.T.), dated 1-9-1998, particularly as the petitioner did not fall within the category of ‘exporter’ who can claim the benefits under this notification and on the other hand having misrepresented facts and having claimed a wrong benefit, which was otherwise not available to the petitioner and the denial of benefit being not merely for the non-compliance of the procedural requirement of obtaining prior permission to get exported the material manufactured in a 100% export oriented unit on job work basis, but with or without such permission for the more important reason of the notification itself being not applicable to the petitioner - The revisional authority having bestowed its attention on facts and also having applied the relevant law which held the field at the relevant time – No need or justification for interfering with impugned order passed by revisional authority - these writ petitions are rejected
-
2009 (3) TMI 392
Collusion on part of departmental officers – Defective SCN - – Exemption under Notification 20/99-Cus., denied on the ground that condition that imported goods (Crude sunflower ol/soyabean oil imported at concessional rate of duty) to be used for refining not fulfilled and such goods diverted in violation of relevant rules - When the facts of verification/cancellation of bond by the departmental officers and the result of departmental investigation are put together, one cannot but infer that prima facie, there is collusion on the part of the departmental officers. If there is collusion, the longer period can definitely be invoked. In that case, the concerned departmental officers also should have been implicated in the Show Cause Notice. Only then the longer period can be invoked. In this case, no Show Cause Notice had been issued to the departmental officers. In fact, the investigation of the department ought to have covered even the concerned departmental officers. When there is clear acquiescence of the departmental officers, in our view, they all should have been made parties to the Show Cause Notice. This has not been done. To put it otherwise, suppression of facts/mis-declaration, etc, cannot be alleged, as the departmental officers were kept informed of the receipt of goods by the appellants. – Very serious and fatal flaw in Show Cause Notice – larger period not invocable– Impugned order is set aside – Appeals allowed
-
2009 (3) TMI 368
Penalty – Trucks intercepted and found carrying contraband – Penalty on drivers of truck, cleaner of truck and owner of contraband - drivers of the truck carrying sugar bags have consciously allowed the vehicle for carrying goods of foreign origin without bill and admittedly, they have done this for monetary considerations. The amount of Rs. 2,000/- charged by each of them appears on the higher side clearly indicating that the consignments are not ordinary goods. Further, admittedly the goods were found concealed. Therefore, we hold that the plea, that they were not aware of the contraband nature of the goods, is not acceptable. – considering the poor financial status of the Drivers, we intend to show some leniency in the quantum of penalties imposed, so we reduce the penalty imposed from Rs. 2,00,000/- to Rs. 20,000/- - As regards the Cleaner, Shri Ved Prakash, no specific evidence about his knowledge about the nature of the goods and about monetary considerations for his work, hence penalty on them is set aside - Commissioner relying on the evidence given by drivrs and another person concluding that appellant owner of goods - in spite of repeated summons by the investigating authorities, appellant has not come forward and tendered any evidence – There is no reason to discard findings – penalty liable but reduced from Rs. 3,00,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/-
-
2009 (3) TMI 343
Validity of Circular No. 21 of 2007, dated 8-5-2007 issued by the Ministry of Finance, Department of Revenue, Government of India is challenged in this Petition. The petitioner has also challenged the action of the customs authorities in withholding clearance of the edible oil imported by the petitioner as per the licence granted by the DGFT under the Target Plus Scheme contained in the Foreign Trade Policy. - we are prima facie of the opinion that where the licence specifically permits importation of a particular item, it will not be open to the customs authorities to contend that the petitioner is not entitled to import that item under the Import Policy. - As regards the interim relief is concerned, the licences as amended on 10-2-2009 specifically permit the petitioner to import all edible oils classified under chapter 15. As per the policy circular No. 10 dated 5-6-2008 job worker named on the said licences is entitled to process the imported goods and sell the resultant product in the open market. In the present case, it is not in dispute that the edible oil imported by the petitioner is covered under Chapter 15. Hence, prima facie the benefit of Exemption Notification No. 32 of 2005 dated 8-4-2005 applicable to the imports under the Target Plus Scheme cannot be denied to the petitioner. - In this view of the matter, pending the hearing and final disposal of the petition, the respondents are directed to clear the edible oil imported by the petitioner on the petitioner furnishing bond and undertaking to pay the amount if ultimately found payable.
-
2009 (3) TMI 333
Liability for payment of any damages in case imported goods destroyed in fire, while in the Air Cargo Complex managed by custodians - the questions required to be considered by this Court in these Revision Petitions are: whether the custodian alone or the Customs Authorities alone are liable to answer the claim of the plaintiffs? or whether all of them are jointly and severally liable to answer the claim of the plaintiffs? - it is clear that the imported goods should land only in customs area of the notified customs Airport and such imported goods should be unloaded only in the customs area notified in the presence of the proper officer. – As per statutory provisions, the Customs Authorities would retain the complete control over the goods so stored with the custodian. The custodian is not an independent authority to deal with the imported goods and he has to act in accordance with the directions of the Proper Officer. – duty liability on custodian on pilferage doesn’t means that customs authority have no liability and they are not answerable for the loss. - in so far the importer is concerned, the moment imported goods lands in customs area, since statutorily it has to remain in the custody of the Customs Authorities till it is released either for home consumption or for warehousing, there will be a statutory creation of bailment and the Customs Authorities become the bailee vis-à-vis the importer. Therefore, in my considered opinion, the customs authorities are principally liable for the proper return of the imported goods to the importer concerned on its clearance.
-
2009 (3) TMI 315
Whether the goods imported by the appellant described as Fused Magnesium Chromide would be classifiable under Chapter Heading 2519 90 40 as claimed by the appellant or under Chapter 3824 90 90 as decided by the Department. - Fused Mag Chrome contains 69% of Magnesium Oxide, which is more specifically covered under CH 2519 90 40, just because product undergone fusion, it cannot be concluded that it cannot come under Chapter 25 - Moreover, long standing practice of classifying the goods under Chapter 25 cannot be changed without change in facts. - And also the other Ports are also classifying the item under Chapter 25. While comparing the entries in Chapters 25 and 38, it appears that the item would more appropriately be classified under Chapter 25 because the entries are more specific in Chapter 25 - Chapter 38 deals with miscellaneous chemical preparations – Impugned item is classifiable under CH 2519 90 40
-
2009 (3) TMI 302
100% EOU - refund claims under Rule 5 of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, for the unutilised credit availed by the respondent in respect of certain inputs used in the manufacture and export of their final product. – claim was rejected on the ground that the respondent was not eligible for the availment and utilisation of Cenvat Credit Rules, 2004, as their final product was not chargeable to any duty under the Tariff Act. – Held that 100% EOU is entitled to take Cenvat credit or the duty on the inputs procured indigenously, and when they are not in a position to utilise the same, they are entitled for the benefit of refund of the same under Cenvat Credit Rules – Appeal rejected
-
2009 (3) TMI 299
The Appeal is filed by an ex-employee of a Customs House Agent. There is no Appeal by the Customs House Agent. As per the Regulation of 22 of Customs House Agent’s Licensing Regulation, 2004, Customs House Agent aggrieved by any decision or order passed under Regulation 20 or Sub-Regulation 7 of Regulation 22 may prefer an Appeal to the Customs, Central Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal. The Appellant is not a Customs House Agent. He is only an ex-employee of Customs House Agent. Therefore the present Appeal is not maintainable. Hence dismissed as such.
-
2009 (3) TMI 208
Application for bail - Whether applicant has committed an offence punishable under section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962?
Held that:- The applicant was arrested on 29-1-2009 and he is in jail for more than 40 days. The prohibited goods have been tendered and seized by the Customs Authorities. Continued detention of the applicant, therefore, in my view, is not necessary since the applicant is permanent resident of India and he could be released on bail subject to certain conditions being imposed on him.
Applicant, therefore, be released on bail in R.A. No. 10/2009 in the sum of ₹ 25,000/- with one or two sureties in the like amount. One of the sureties shall be a local surety. Applicant shall report to the Customs Authorities once in three months and shall report to Customs Authorities in Chennai once in a month.Application is accordingly allowed in the aforesaid terms.
-
2009 (3) TMI 203
... ...
... ... ..... that the appellant has not declared the possession of gold on Customs Clearance Card on arrival as required under Section 77 of the Customs Act. The Tribunal has further observed that the appellant is a frequent traveller and is well aware of the Customs Rules as she, as per her own admission, had already cleared gold at Delhi International Airport, previously for which she paid duty. 8. We find these observations of the Tribunal to be perfectly justified. If the appellant was a frequent traveller, her case that she, by mistake, crossed the Green Channel and that as she was not aware of the amount of duty to be paid that she wanted to make enquiry with the bank is on the face of it, untenable and clearly an afterthought. Besides, the Tribunal has reduced the penalty and allowed release of gold on payment of redemption fine. The gold has already been redeemed. In the circumstances, we find that no case is made out for interference with the impugned order. Appeal is dismissed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 201
Whether there is any delay in passing the detention order and delay in disposal of the representation?
Held that:- it is unfortunate that the High Court while considering the Habeas Corpus writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by the wife of the detenu challenging the order of detention on various grounds, on going through the materials of the department as if as an Appellate Court relying on Section 482 Code of Criminal Procedure directed the Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Tughlakabad, to lodge a report with the police station, Tughlakabad within a period of 15 days along with the complete set of relevant documents to enable them to register a case under Sections 199, 420, 468 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code against the detenu. The said direction is not warranted considering the fact that issue before the High Court was about the validity of the detention order and the curtailment of the personal liberty of the detenu and nothing more. We are of the view that the High Court is not justified in issuing such direction and awarding exemplary cost of ₹ 50,000/- payable to the sponsoring authority. Appeal allowed.
-
2009 (3) TMI 199
Seizure of Currency - Misdeclartation of goods - Whether the High Court was justified in ordering unconditional release of the currency which allegedly represented the sale-proceeds of the misdeclared goods, which, if proved, were liable to be confiscated under Section 111 or Section 113 - Held that:- prima facie that before adjudication, in exercise of writ jurisdiction on the facts of this case, the High Court ought not to have granted unconditional release of the cash. In fact, we called upon the learned counsel for the respondent to give a bank guarantee. The respondent is not in a position to give a bank guarantee for the amount which he had already withdrawn - Stay granted.
-
2009 (3) TMI 185
Valuation – Application of Rule 5 and Rule 9 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988 (CVR) – held that - we find that the original authority had decided that “agent discount” allowed to the appellants had to be included in the value of the impugned goods in terms of Rule 9(1)(a) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 1988. He had also found that Valuation Rules 5 and 6 were not applicable in determining the value of impugned goods. In the impugned order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that “agent discount” allowed to the appellants had to be added for assessment of the impugned goods invoking Rule 5 of the CVR. We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) made a new case different from the one contained in the order impugned before him and that the same is not sustainable in law. In the circumstances, we vacate the impugned order and allow the appeal.
-
2009 (3) TMI 175
Tariff Value – Import of Brass Scrap - Notification No. 36/2001-Cus. (N.T.) – held that - No doubt that brass scrap was not one of the disputed items before the Hon’ble High Court and no reference stands made to the said product but it is the entire Notification that stands set aside by the Hon’ble High Court without any exception to any of the product mentioned in the Notification. The reasoning of the Hon’ble High Court for setting aside the said Notification as ultra virus may be in respect of oils only but the final portion of the order sets aside the entire Notification, inclusive of the amendment. As such, it has to be held that the entire Notification was set aside, in which case, tariff value fixed vide said Notification in respect of import of brass scrap cannot be adopted. Ld. DR has not shown us any order to the contrary. The judgments relied by him are only on the issue that the Government has the powers to fix tariff value, in which there is no legal dispute.
-
2009 (3) TMI 172
EOU – Sale of goods to DTA (Domestic Tariff Area) - Notification No. 23/03-C.E., dated 31-3-2003 - notification exempted goods manufactured wholly from imported (sic) [indigenous] raw materials and cleared by an EOU to DTA from the duty of excise equal to that leviable on such goods manufactured and cleared by other DTA units – held that - ‘Consumables’ meant any item which participated and was required for a manufacturing process but did not form part of the end product. These were substantially or totally consumed during the manufacturing process. ‘Raw material’ meant basic material which were needed for the manufacture of goods whether they had been previously manufactured or were processed or were still in a raw or natural state. - granites are basic material that go into the production of granite slabs; the resin and hardner in question are consumables different from raw materials. Notification No. 23/2003-C.E. extends its benefit to goods manufactured wholly from indigenous raw materials.
-
2009 (3) TMI 169
DEPB – fake and forged licences – demand and recovery – period of limitation – held that - Although the Commissioner has recorded a finding in para 5.22 of the impugned order that the importers had colluded with broker M/s. Somanathan & Co. in obtaining fake DEPB licences, we find that there was no such allegation in the SCN and further, the finding of collusion also cannot be sustained for the reason that the Commissioner holds that the importers had not taken necessary precaution including conducting proper verification of the DEPB scrips etc., which, certainly, cannot be held to amount to collusion with the broker. There is not even a whisper that the importer had knowledge or reason to believe that the licences purchased from the broker were fake/forged. In these circumstances, the extended period of limitation is not attracted against the appellants. We, therefore, set aside the impugned order on the ground of limitation and allow the appeal.
-
2009 (3) TMI 165
Refund – Bill of entry – provisional assessment – relevant document for refund – The claim was however rejected on the ground that the triplicate copy of the Bill of Entry was not filed along with the claim for refund - Public Notice No. 436/2002 - held that - that since only two copies of the exbond Bill of Entry are generated, one copy for the importer and the other for the bond section, the question of the production of triplicate copy does not arise - There is no dispute that the respondents did produce the duplicate exbond Bill of Entry, which was sufficient for the purpose for granting the claim for refund.
|
