|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 84 Records
More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote and Decision etc.
-
2009 (5) TMI 963
... ...
... ... ..... is only ₹ 80,000/-, keeping the question of law open, Civil Appeal is dismissed.
-
2009 (5) TMI 955
... ...
... ... ..... le to accept the arguments that Hon’ble High Court of Gujarat did not go into the merits but the rejected appeal filed by the appellant in the case of M/s. Priya Blue Industries supports the case of the appellant. In view of several decisions of the Tribunal on merit and since we also do not find any reason to differ from the precedent decisions, we hold that the appellants have no case on merit. As regards interest on differential duty arising as a result of finalization of provisional assessment, since the interest liability clause was introduced in 2006 only, the appellants are entitled to that benefit. As regards the appeal filed by M/s. Ghasiram Gokalchand Ship Breaking Yard, we remand the matter to original adjudicating authority with direction to re-assess the quantum of duty treating the quantity as 1.2 K.ltrs. if the appellants are able to produce the communication from the Supdtt. confirming the quantity as 1.2 K.Ltrs. only. (Pronounced in Court on 29-5-2009)
-
2009 (5) TMI 954
... ...
... ... ..... 91 almost five years before the Writ Petition was filed. The claims pertain to the period January-March, 1989. Respondents in their reply have stated that they are not able to trace out the relevant file. The petitioner has not filed on record any letter/correspondence after 1991 till 1996 in respect of the said appeal. Even in the rejoinder affidavit, it is not stated that steps have been taken by him from 1991 onwards. It is not possible for this Court to examine whether the Second Appeal was decided or not. It will be open to the petitioner to approach the Office of Director General of Foreign Trade. Director General of Foreign Trade will examine the said request and the documents and if the submission of the petitioner is found to be correct then a suitable order will be passed. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by any Order passed by the respondent, he will be entitled to redress his grievance in accordance with law. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of. No costs.
-
2009 (5) TMI 953
... ...
... ... ..... petitioner and the respondents to furnish full details and particulars. In these circumstances, it is left open to the petitioner to approach the office of Director General of Foreign Trade along with relevant documents in support of his claim with a representation/letter for payment and disposal of applications for CCS claimed under SPS Scheme where files or details are not available. Respondents will examine the claim of the petitioner and pass a speaking order within six months after representation is made. All pleas and contentions including question of delay and laches, failure to rectify and remove defects, etc. will be examined and are available to the respondents. It is clarified that this direction is in respect of CCS benefits under SPS Scheme, where files are not traceable. In case the petitioner is aggrieved by the Order passed by the respondents, they will be entitled to ventilate their grievance in accordance with law. Writ Petition is accordingly disposed of.
-
2009 (5) TMI 943
... ...
... ... ..... issued by the Board vide 14/2001 Cus. dated 2.3.2001 communicated the decision that demurrage charges are includible in the assessable value, whether demurrage charges can be excluded from assessable value for imports subsequent to 2.3.2001 even where assessments were made provisional on the ground that final decision was taken by the Board only on 26.9.2006 when Tribunal has taken a view that legally such demurrage charges are includible". Pronounced in Court on dated 29.4.2009 Archana Wadhwa, Judicial Member - Though I do not subscribe to the view adopted by my learned brother that the earlier decisions of the Tribunal in case of M/s Shine Petroleum Pvt. Ltd. and M/s MGM International Exports Ltd. were not correctly decided, I am not recording a difference of opinion and would like the matter to be decided by Larger Bench, in view of some doubts expressed by learned Member (Technical) about the correctness of the precedent decisions. Pronounced in court on 21.05.2009
-
2009 (5) TMI 940
... ...
... ... ..... ivision Bench, after considering the law in extenso, has come to conclusion that director is not liable. In the instant case, the petitioner had resigned on 1.12.1994. The bill of entry had been filed on 19.1.1994. However, no statutory provision has been shown under the Customs Act or for that matter under the provisions of Customs (Attachment of Property of Defaulters for recovery of Government Dues) Rules, 1995 making a Director liable for the dues of a company. In our opinion, the Judgment in Sunil Parmeshwar Mittal (cited supra) will have to be followed. 4. In the light of that, Rule is made absolute in terms of prayer (a).
-
2009 (5) TMI 918
Detention of person - illegal trading of diazepam, lorazepam, alprazolam, clonazepam and phenobarbitone - Section 3(1) of the PIT- NDPS Act -
-
2009 (5) TMI 914
... ...
... ... ..... JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2009 (5) TMI 897
... ...
... ... ..... we would like to point out that initially none of the detention orders in respect of the petitioners had been placed on record. Subsequently, the petitioners had placed copies of the detention orders on record. The learned Additional Solicitor General had raised an objection as to how the petitioners came upon such detention orders when they had not yet been served with the same. When the matter came up for hearing on 18.05.2009, Mr Tulsi, the learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, stated that there would be no difficulty in explaining the circumstances under which the petitioners obtained copies of the detention orders and that an affidavit to the same effect would be filed. We find that an affidavit has been filed and it gives some kind of an explanation. We are not commenting upon the explanation given in the said affidavit and leave it to the respondents to enquire into and investigate the said circumstances. The writ petition stands disposed of.
-
2009 (5) TMI 895
... ...
... ... ..... biguous the court is not entitled to go behind the languages so as to add or supply omissions.” In the present case the words are very clear and there is no ambiguity. Moreover in the decisions cited by the learned advocate and also relied on by the lower authority, it has been very clearly held that the exemption notification is not be available to semi-finished ophthalmic blanks. In such circumstances, we are of the opinion that this Bench is bound to follow the ratio of the earlier decision and therefore in our view there is absolutely no reason to interfere, with the decisions of the lower authority. In fine, for the reason stated above we dismiss the appeal and uphold the impugned order.” The ratio of the said decision is squarely applicable to the present case. Therefore following ratio of the above decision, we dismiss all the appeals of the appellants. (Operative portion of order has been pronounced in the open Court on completion of hearing on 11-5-2009)
-
2009 (5) TMI 864
Whether a confessional statement is voluntary and free from any pressure?
Held that:- As the appellants were not found to be in possession of the contraband, the burden of prove never shifted on them. Aappeals are allowed. The appellants are directed to be released forthwith if not required in connection with any other case.
-
2009 (5) TMI 854
Valuation of imported equipment - Autotron Packaging Colour to Colour Registration Control System - Project Consultancy charge - applicability of Rule 9(1)(e) of the Valuation Rules
-
2009 (5) TMI 851
... ...
... ... ..... tement of Shri Raj Kumar, Partner of CHA, that all pending bills of entry were with the company and the bills of entry were taken back by the importer on the pretext that he had to take loan for demurrage and other charges from the bank on the basis of original documents, whereas the original documents being Customs documents cannot be given to the importer after filing the same in the Customs Department. There is no finding as to how the return of original Bills of Entry to the importers helped them in the import at highly inflated price. The Department has not led any evidence to bring out knowledge of the CHA that the imported goods were over invoiced so as to hold the CHA guilty of abetment. Therefore, penalty imposed on the CHA is also not sustainable and is accordingly set aside. 6. In the result, the impugned order imposing penalties on the appellants, above mentioned, is set aside and the appeals are allowed. (Pronounced in the open Court on the 12th day of May, 2009)
-
2009 (5) TMI 802
Confiscation - baggage rules - wrist watches of ‘de-Grisogono’ - Section 123 of the Act - jurisdiction of Settlement Commission to entertain application under Section 127B of the Act
-
2009 (5) TMI 800
Penalty - Smuggled gold and diamonds seized from brother of appellant ... ... ... ... ..... ove statements in detail and find that neither Shri Abubucker nor Shri G. Subramanian implicate the appellant in any way or attribute any part in the offence of smuggling of diamonds and gold to him. The statement of the appellant is also exculpatory. As regards the statement of Shri Kasim Mustafa who has stated that he used to get smuggled rough diamonds and gold from the appellant, we find that Shri Kasim Mustafa was one of the accused before the ACCM and vide judgment dated 24-1-2008 in EOCC case No. 290/89, the court has accepted that Shri Kasim Mustafa rsquo s statement was recorded under torture and, therefore, it cannot be relied upon as against Shri Kasim Mustafa himself or the others. 3. Therefore, there is no basis for the finding that the appellant was involved in the offence of smuggling of diamonds and gold. We, therefore, set aside the penalty imposed on him and allow the appeal with consequential relief to the appellants. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2009 (5) TMI 796
Confiscation, penalty and redemption fine ... ... ... ... ..... per the provisions of Rule 126 of Central Motor Vehicle Rules, 1989. 5. emsp After hearing contentions of both sides and perusal of the records, it is very much clear from the Import Licencing Note that whoever which includes individuals and manufacturer both and the appellants has failed to comply the import conditions as per Import Licencing Note, hence the appellants have contravened the provisions of law. 6. emsp I find that the appellants have purchased the above vehicle not for sale but only for display in the show room for brand promotion, the redemption fine and the penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority are too high. 7. emsp I reduce the redemption fine (Rs. 10,00,000/- and Rs. 8,50,000/-) to Rs. 1,50,000/- (Rupees One lakh fifty thousand only) each case under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, and the penalties are also reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One lakh only) each case under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. (Pronounced in Court on 29-5-09)
-
2009 (5) TMI 792
Confiscation - Misdeclaration of goods - Held that: - the Commissioner is right in holding the goods covered by bill of entry 340 as pipes falling under 7304.39. The denial of the benefit of exemption notification No. 16/2000 dated 1-3-2000 for the goods covered by the above bill of entry is also legal and proper. It has to be accepted.
With regard to other goods covered by bills of entry No. 79 and 177 they had already been cleared by the Customs. The main allegation is that the said goods ought to have been unloaded only at the final destination in the A. P. and the evidence shows that they had been unloaded at Bangalore - Held that: - the Adjudicating Authority has not allowed the cross-examination of the drivers and the surveyor. In our view, this is violation of principles of natural justice. Sufficient opportunity has not been given to the appellant for defending their case - We also take note of the appellants contention that the trucks with the containers could not pass through the narrow roads and consequently, they were compelled to unload the goods at Bangalore and carry them to the factory in other lorries. There is also no evidence of the appellant having received the melting scrap from other sources. In view of this lacuna in investigation, we have to give the benefit of doubt to the appellants.
Appeal allowed in part.
-
2009 (5) TMI 790
Confiscation - Misdeclaration, proof ... ... ... ... ..... the supplier, that 5 drums of palmolein had been mistakenly loaded in the consignment of PKFAD, was on records in the first round of litigation. We find that the learned Commissioner (A) has relied upon an evidences as to the payment which has been made for the entire consignment i.e., for the price of PKFAD. We find that the Revenue has not adduced any evidence as to the payment of any amount to the supplier for RBD palmolein which was in the consignment and admittedly costlier than PKFAD. We find that the revenue rsquo s appeal against the said order of the learned Commissioner (A) is devoid of merits, as the said letter dated 3-1-2006 is written by the foreign supplier and is signed by the Director of the supplier. 5.2 emsp In view of this, we are of the considered view that the impugned order is correct and legal and needs to be upheld and we do so. Revenue rsquo s appeal is rejected. (Operative portion of this Order was pronounced in open court on conclusion of hearing)
-
2009 (5) TMI 784
Refund of seized currency - Ownership ... ... ... ... ..... at the goods were seized from the possession of the appellant. The Original Authority observed that the amount may be refunded to Shri H.P. Goyal, Husband of the appellant. It is a fact that the amount was seized neither from the possession of Shri H.P. Goyal nor he has claimed for it. On the other hand, it is revealed from the Panchnama that the Indian Currency was seized as the appellant could not produce any evidence for the legal acquisition. Therefore, the amount should be released to the appellant. 8. emsp In view of the above discussions, the impugned order is set aside and it is directed to release the amount to the appellant, from whose possession it was seized. In this context, ld. Consultant submits that they have claimed interest also. The Original Authority is directed to decide the issue of payment of interest in accordance with law. The appeal filed by the appellant is allowed with consequential relief. (Order dictated and pronounced in open Court on 21-5-2009)
-
2009 (5) TMI 783
EXIM - EPCG - Export obligation, non-fulfilment of ... ... ... ... ..... .). 4. emsp We have gone through the respective citations at respective pages of the appeal folder that was brought to our notice by Revenue. When we look into the clarification of DGFT at page 66 and also the clarification issued by Ministry of Law at page 3 of order of adjudication, we are of the belief that the learned Commissioner has passed appropriate order making his observation that the goods manufactured in Gurgaon was only subjected to discharge of export obligation by the Appellant. The capital goods installed at Ludhiana factory did not result in discharge of export obligation. In absence of such nexus, the appellant has failed to discharge its export obligation. We are also satisfied with Revenue on its reliance on the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Jacsons Thevara v. CCE reported in 1992 (61) E.L.T. 343 (S.C.). The Appellant having defeated the purpose of concession under law, its appeal is dismissed. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court).
|
