Home Case Index All Cases Customs 2009 2009 2009 (5) Customs - 2009 (5) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Customs - Case Laws

Showing 21 to 40 of 84 Records

• 2009 (5) TMI 782
  

  Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... llants had made several consignments of exports in order to fulfil the export obligation. 3. emsp Learned Advocate invited our attention to Para 3 of Condition 3 of Notification No. 13/08 and stated that in terms of the condition only when the imported materials are not used, duty ought to have been demanded. That is not the case here. The appellants in the present case, could not use some of the consumables imported/procured. It is seen that according to the appellants the entire liability could be only Rs. 4,53,000/- Revenue has already encashed BG for Rs. 16.5 lakhs. In such circumstances, we are of the view that the amount already encashed by the revenue is sufficient for hearing the appeal. Therefore we order complete waiver of the pre-deposit of the balance amount of dues demanded in the impugned order till the disposal of the appeal. No coercive measures should be taken for recovery of the amounts till the disposal of the appeal. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)

  ---

• 2009 (5) TMI 779
  

  Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Advance licence

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... iction on the inter-State movement of this sugar for export out of India. It is also very clear from para 7, which is as follows ldquo This export of sugar is in fulfilment of the export obligation against the import of Raw Sugar for reprocessing into white sugar under advance license No. 0910019136, dated 30-6-2004 made by M/s. NCS Sugars Ltd., 405 and 406, Minar Apts., Deccan Towers, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad-I. rdquo 5. emsp We have also seen the documents indicating the export realization in respect of the advance licences. In these circumstances, the objection of the learned Commissioner, prima facie, is not sustainable. The appellants have a strong case in their favour. Hence, we order full waiver of the pre-deposit of the amounts demanded in the impugned order till the disposal of the appeal. No coercive action should be taken against the appellants till the disposal of the appeal and even after expiry of 180 days of the stay order. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)

  ---

• 2009 (5) TMI 762
  

  Refund - time Limitation - payment under Protest - burden of proof - Held that: - filing an appeal against an order of assessment amounts to protest and refund cannot be denied on the ground of time-bar - the claim of the assessees is not hit by limitation - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2009 (5) TMI 751
  

  Penalty - Imposition of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... sustainable. To this extent, the appeal succeeds. However, the appellant has not been able to make out a good case against the broker Shri Satya Prakash Bagla. As rightly held by the Commissioner, he was engaged in a post-importation activity in relation to the car. He arranged sale of the car by the importer to M/s. Jai Krishan Liquors P. Ltd. and collected his commission. There is no evidence on record to show that Shri Satya Prakash Bagla did anything or omitted to do anything with the knowledge or belief that the car was liable to confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. Therefore, the prayer for penalty on him cannot be acceded to. 7. emsp In the result, I allow this appeal only to the limited extent of holding that Shri Ashok Wadia is liable to be penalised under Section 112(b) of the Customs Act on the facts of this case. It is for the lower authority to determine the quantum of penalty, for which purpose the case is remanded to the Commissioner. (Dictated in Court)

  ---

• 2009 (5) TMI 738
  

  Appeal to Appellate Tribunal

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... nd clear the goods provisionally on execution of bond of the entire amount of duty, would help in clearance of consignment. 5. emsp We find that the consignment is of Coco powder and is of perishable nature and no useful purpose will be served by holding the consignment back at the port. Hence, we are of the considered view that the Commissioner of Customs or lower authorities, should clear the said consignments provisionally, and debit the same under the licence which are issued by the authorities, also provisionally, after the applicant executes a bond for the entire amount of duty that would, be foregone due to DFIA licence, as produced by importer. 6. emsp As the issue involved is of live bill of entry, it is an issue of interpretation, and also considering the submission made that further two more consignments are being imported, we direct the registry to fix the appeal for disposal on 22-6-2009. 7. emsp Order to be given by Dasti. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)

  ---

• 2009 (5) TMI 736
  

  Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Demand - Additional Duty of Customs

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ssion by the Ld. Counsel that vide decision in the case of Nitco Tiles Ltd. v. CCE, Mumbai reported in 2004 (165) E.L.T. 50 (Tri.-Mum.), the Tribunal also had held that marble slabs obtained by cutting, polishing and fibre glass reinforcement of marble slabs did not amount to manufacture. 4. emsp On a careful consideration of the facts of the case and the submissions by both sides, we find that the appellants have made out a prima facie case against the demand of additional duty of customs on the strength of the judgment of the Apex Court in Aman Marble Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner (supra), which had held that the process of production of polished marble slabs by cutting of marble blocks did not amount to manufacture. Therefore, additional duty of customs is not leviable on like goods when imported. Accordingly we order waiver of pre-deposit of the adjudged dues and stay recovery thereof pending decision in the appeal. (Order pronounced and dictated in the open Court)

  ---

• 2009 (5) TMI 732
  

  Appeal by Department - Restoration of appeal

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... e decided that on the grounds mentioned in CCP rsquo s above note, the OIA is not legal and proper and needs to be appealed against. rdquo 3. emsp We find that Committee of Commissioners has not authorized any Officer to file Appeal. The authorization now produced is by the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.), Kolkata directing the Addl. Commissioner of Customs to file Appeal. As there is no authorization by the Committee of Commissioner of Customs to file appeal to the Commissioner (Prev.) or to Addl. Commissioner of Customs who filed the Appeal therefore we find no merit in this Application. The same is dismissed. (Pronounced and dictated in the open court)

  ---

• 2009 (5) TMI 728
  

  Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Anti-dumping duty

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... dumping duty of Rs. 4,27,626/- (out of the total demand of Rs. 4,31,646/- on 294 sets of non-radial bias tyres, tubes and flaps cleared by the applicants vide Bill of Entry dated 21-6-07 in terms of Notification No. 88/2007, dated 24-7-07 and a sum of Rs. 4020 was paid by the applicants and appropriated by the adjudicating authority and together with interest under Section 28AB of the Customs Act, 1962). We find that strong prima facie case for unconditional waiver has been made out in the light of Tribunal rsquo s decision in Harsh International v. CC, Mumbai, 2007 (217) E.L.T. 528 (Tri.-Mum.) holding that a levy introduced retrospectively cannot be recovered under the provisions of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 (in the present case, the demand of differential anti-dumping duty has been confirmed under Section 28). We, therefore, waive pre-deposit of the anti-dumping duty and interest and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)

  ---

• 2009 (5) TMI 720
  

  Refund - Limitation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... ims for refund have not been filed within the statutory period of limitation prescribed under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, they have been rightly held to be barred by limitation. The plea of the assessees that levy of cess on prawns has been declared as unconstitutional and in the case of unconstitutional levy, the question of limitation does not arise, is not tenable for the reason that there is no order holding levy of cess on prawns to be unconstitutional and what the Tribunal held in its decision reported in 2005 (190) E.L.T. 72 which was upheld by the Hon rsquo ble Madras High Court in its decision reported in 2008 (230) E.L.T. 225 (Mad.) was that exports of prawns/shrimps were not exigible to levy of cess under Section 3 of the Agricultural Produce Cess Act, 1940. 3. emsp In the light of the above discussion, I uphold the findings of the authorities below that the refund claims are hit by limitation and reject the appeals. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)

  ---

• 2009 (5) TMI 710
  

  Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Smuggling - Appeal - Early hearing

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... d (m) as he was not one of the passengers and prima facie no case has been made out by the department against S/Shri Lakshminarayanan, Partheeban, Kathiravan and Janakiraman for the same reason. We, therefore, waive pre-deposit of the penalties imposed upon all the applicants and stay recovery thereof pending the appeals. 5. emsp The prayer for early hearing of the above appeals is allowed as the jewellery brought in by passengers has been absolutely confiscated and the arguments in this case are not likely to be lengthy and consume much time. The appeals are, therefore, fixed for final hearing on 9-7-09. 6. emsp The prayers in the miscellaneous applications filed by Shri G.V. Ramesh for release of the car and currency as well as the prayer in the miscellaneous application filed by others for stay of the disposal of the jewellery are dismissed in view of the fact that the appeals themselves have been fixed for out-of-turn hearing. (Order dictated and pronounced in open Court)

  ---

• 2009 (5) TMI 708
  

  EXIM - DFIA - Valuation - Confiscation - Liability of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... lso we accept the contents of the mahazar as true. In case it was not so, the proper course to be followed was for the importer to approach the Hon rsquo ble High Court. The appellants have accepted the discrepancy as regards the item cabinet connections and attributed it to clerical error. In the circumstances, we uphold the order of the Commissioner as regards the misdeclaration of quantity and value of the consignment, its liability to confiscation under Section 111(m) and 111(l), and liability of the importer to penalty under Sections 112(a) and 114A. The revised value of the consignment is Rs. 7,47,267/-. A total differential duty of Rs. 1,55,914/- was demanded in respect of this consignment. However, considering that the impugned goods could not be confiscated under Section 111(d) as ordered, we reduce the fine and penalty in this regard to Rs. 50,000/- each. The appeal of M/s. Yashavi Enterprises is disposed of accordingly. (Order pronounced in open court on 11-5-2009)

  ---

• 2009 (5) TMI 699
  

  Confiscation - Import without license

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... authority has noted that the goods had been absolutely confiscated by the original authority, we find that the original authority had confiscated the goods and offered an option to the appellants to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 50,000/- besides imposing penalty. He ordered that the goods may be destroyed or cleared for export with the approval of the Commissioner on payment of fine and penalty. The appellants pray that they be allowed to pay the redemption fine ordered by the original authority and clear the goods for home consumption on payment of applicable duty and penalty. The revenue has not raised any valid objection to this prayer. In the circumstances, we allow the request of the appellants to redeem the goods on payment of fine and penalty and applicable duty as ordered by the original authority. Goods shall be released on the appellants producing clearance from the Assistant Drugs Controller concerned. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

  ---

• 2009 (5) TMI 696
  

  Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... applicants to retain the facility of zero duty benefit, the Commissioner has denied such benefit on the ground that the permission was obtained from the DGFT by the appellants misdeclaring that the machines in question had been cleared on payment of 10 CVD while this was not factually correct as 10 of the CVD had not been paid on goods imported under cover of one of the licences. 2. emsp We find prima facie force in the submission of the applicants that in the absence of any cancellation of the permission to club the licences so as to maintain zero duly benefit, by the DGFT, before whom all Bills of Entry namely those evidencing payment of CVD and those not so evidencing, the customs authorities prima facie cannot sit in appeal over the decision of the DGFT to grant zero duty benefit by clubbing of the licences in question. We, therefore, waive the pre-deposits of the amounts adjudged and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal. (Order dictated and pronounced in open Court)

  ---

• 2009 (5) TMI 692
  

  Confiscation of conveyance - Allegations, absence of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... the records, it appears that these truck trailers were used for transporting in the containers which contained various goods. The adjudicating authority no where in the impugned order indicated that the above goods contained in the containers transported by the truck trailers were smuggled goods and were being smuggled. 10. emsp The imposition of redemption fine and the penalty on the ground that the appellant provided the truck trailers without caring to ascertain as to how they were going to be used. Now I found there is no mention in the impugned order as to how and which provision of law was contravened by the appellant. In the absence of any specific allegations against the appellant, the appellant are not covered under Section 115(2) of the Custom Act, 1962, as it was not ascertaining that the containers contained the smuggled goods or being smuggled. 11. emsp Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the appeal is allowed. (Pronounced on 29-5-2009 in the court)

  ---

• 2009 (5) TMI 690
  

  Liability of Interest - duty short paid confirmed under Section 18(2) of Customs Act, 1962 - finalisation of Provisional assessment - Held that:- The period involved is prior to 13-7-2006, the date on which the Sub-Section (3) was inserted in Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore the provisions of Sections 18(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 are not applicable in the present case - demand of interest not sustainable - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

  ---

• 2009 (5) TMI 689
  

  Demand - Limitation

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... n the other hand the learned Counsel for the respondents contended that nowhere in the order-in-original it was mentioned under which provision of law the demand was raised. Moreover the duty was paid as per Bill of Entry for the year 1992 and Less Charge Demand has been raised in the year 2001. It is also contended that the duty levied at the time of assessment was duly paid by the respondents and Less Charge Demand is barred by limitation under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. emsp From the above I find that the adjudicating authority has raised Less Charge Demand on 12-2-2002 against the Bill of Entry No. 7594 dated 29-4-1992 after a period of nine years. But in order-in-original, no provisions of law were mentioned under which the Less Charge Demand was raised. The Less Charge Demand is barred by limitation as per stipulated period under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly the order-in-appeal is upheld and the appeal is dismissed. (Pronounced in Court)

  ---

• 2009 (5) TMI 687
  

  EXIM - EPCG Licence, date of effect

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... oor and the doctrine of dating back and relating back is to be held to apply so as to hold that both the appellants were in possession of a valid licence at the time of import in March rsquo 95 so as to hold them to be eligible to the benefit of concessional rate of duty under the relevant notification. However, we find that these submissions are not tenable for the reason that the clear language of the notification enjoins upon the appellants the requirement of possession of valid licence issued on or after 1-5-95 by the licensing authority which has been defined in the notification itself as the DGFT, on the date of import. The licences to the appellants having been issued only subsequent to the import, it is obvious that neither of them are entitled to the benefit of concessional rate of duty for the goods imported by them in March rsquo 95. Therefore, we uphold the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and reject the appeals. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)

  ---

• 2009 (5) TMI 684
  

  Suspension of CHA license - Immediate action - export of contraband item - evidence of culpable involvement of the CHA in the export of contraband

  ---

• 2009 (5) TMI 682
  

  Confiscation and penalty - Misdeclaration

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... is due to the fact that it is recognized while granting exemption under the Notification that Re-rollable steel scrap should be as per the norms set out in Standard 13 of IS 2549 1994. We also hold that the department has not discharged the burden that the goods imported are not as described, namely that they are not heavy melting scrap but Re-rollable steel scrap. We also find that in the case of Shriram Metals and Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. CC, Chennai 2006 (200) E.L.T. 274 (Tri.-Chen.) the Tribunal has rejected the report of the NML and relied upon IS 2549 1994 to hold that the goods imported by the appellants therein conform to the definition of ferrous scrap in Indian Standard. 4. emsp In the light of the above discussion, we accept the importer rsquo s claim that what they imported was heavy melting scrap and therefore set aside the finding of contravention of Section 111(m), and consequent confiscation and penalty, and allow the appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)

  ---

• 2009 (5) TMI 679
  

  Confiscation and penalty - Prohibited goods - Penalty - Quantum of

  
  
  ... ...
  ... ... ..... Plant Quarantine Authorities. The said authorities disallowed the release of the goods and, therefore, the goods are prohibited items. Thus, the importation of the goods in this case is prohibited by the Law and, therefore, confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act is justified. 4. emsp However, I agree with the submission of the ld. Advocate that quantum of penalties is excessive. It is seen that the imported goods were accompanied with the certificate issued by the competent authority of Pakistan. Thus, it is also noted that part of the consignments were released by the Plant Quarantine Authorities. I also noted that the appellants already suffered due to destruction of the imported goods involving huge amount. 5. emsp Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the penalties are reduced to Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand only) in each case. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open court on 12-5-2009)

  ---

12345