|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 84 Records
-
2009 (5) TMI 472
Foreign Exchange violation- By an order the Adjudicating Authority held the appellant guilty for violation of the provisions of the aforesaid Sections of the FERA in all the five Show Cause Notices and imposed a total penalty of Rs. 20,75,000/- In this manner, a total of Rs. 14,51,360/- was appropriated as penalty amount against the total penalty of Rs. 20,75,000/- , leaving a balance of Rs. 6,23,240/-. Failure on part of person concerned to pay the penalty imposed is sine qua non for conviction under section 57. Held that- No failure on part of petitioner to pay the penalty imposed, when Appellate Tribunal itself had waived the deposit of balance penalty amount. The petitioner cannot be said to be either deliberate or willful when Appellate Tribunal itself had waived penalty amount and appeal pending before Tribunal. Complaint filed u/s 57 ibid quashed.
-
2009 (5) TMI 462
Penalty on custom officers- M/s. Jamba Exports had fraudulently obtained DEPB benefits amounting to Rs.4,62,889.00 by managing to get ante-dated Customs Examination Report dated 31-3-2000 on the Shipping Bill No. 2277 dated 31-3-2007, but the goods were received in warehouse on or after 1-4-2000. DEPB rates were reduced after 1-4-2000. It has been alleged that Shri D.R. Ahuja, Superintendent of Customs, appellant no. 1 herein and Shri M.P. Singh, Inspector had put their signatures on the export documents as 31-3-2000 but the examination was done on 4-4-2000. It has further been alleged that Shri Vijay Madan signed the exports documents authorised by Shri Qimiti Lal Sharma, CHA, appellant No. 2 herein. By the impugned order, the Commissioner imposed penalty of Rs.20,000/- each on both the appellants. He also imposed redemption fine and penalty on the exporter and others. Held that- it was a case of mere negligence without intention/collusion to give undue benefit to exporter. In that view no penalty was imposable on him under section 114 of Custom Act, 1962.
-
2009 (5) TMI 446
Classification- Notification No. 21.2002-Cus.-Limitation- The appellants are manufacturing PCO Call Monitors using WISMO Modules and the PCO Call Monitors have been assessed to Central Excise Duty by classifying them under Heading 84702000 of the Central Excise Tariff, which is not in dispute. Therefore, the WISMO Modules imported by the appellants are admittedly used as ‘Parts’ in the manufacture of the same and are duly classifiable under Heading 8473 of the Customs Tariff. During the year 2002 to 2004, the appellants classified the item under 8473. In their first import of the impugned goods, they classified the items under 8529 as ‘Parts of Cellular phones’. But the Customs authorities revised the classification from 8529 to 8473 as Parts of PCO Call Monitor and assessed to duty accordingly. Held that- classifiable under Tariff item 8529 90 90 ibid and not under heading 85.17 ibid which relates to line telegraphy. Benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No. 21.2002-Cus. is available.
for the extended period department itself unsure of classification and advising assessee at different time to classify impugned goods under different headings, thus invocation of extended period found to be improper u/s 28 of Custom Act, 1962.
-
2009 (5) TMI 444
Duty drawback- The appellants exported iron ore. At the time of export, they produced the analysis certificate indicating the percentage of Fe in the iron ore. It was 61.45%. In terms of the Notification No. 62/2007 dated 3-5-2007, the appellants were entitled for concessional rate of export duty. Held that- we are of the view that the certificate produced by the reputed laboratory should be accepted. This issue is also covered in favour of the assessee vide this Bench judgment in the case of Alpine International v. CC, Mangalore, In these circumstances, we allow the appeal with consequential relief.
-
2009 (5) TMI 434
Confiscation- DEEC Scheme- the appellant was the holder of two DEEC Advance Licence bearing No. 07002638 dated 21-8-1998 and No. 0710000070 dated 13-5-1999, incorporating the actual user condition and issued under EXIM Policy under 1997-2002 by the licensing authority. This appeal is directed against impugned Order-in-Original No. 3/2008 Commr. dated 28-2-2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore confirming a demand of duty which has been foregone of Rs.99,20,281/- with appropriate interest in terms of Notification No. 30/97-Cus., dated 1-4-1997, confiscating the goods under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act. Though, the goods are not available for confiscation, imposing redemption fine of Rs.45,00,000/- under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 and imposing penalty of Rs.60,00,000/- under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 on the appellant. Held that- We find that the Adjudicating Authority has ignored the above binding precedence and relied by the appellant without any justifiable reason. The endeavour in the impugned order appears to be doubting the scope and content of advance license in the question. Though the settled position of law has enunciated by several binding precedents, was in particular clear in the instant case, if at all the revenue had any doubts on the scope and contents of the license, the proper course would have been reference to DGFT. The Chapter 4 of EXIM Policy 1997-2002 which applies to the present case deals with the general position of exports and imports. Therefore, the entire proceedings against the appellant in the present case are liable to be set aside being premature in so far as they have been initiated contrary to the mandate of the above Para 4.13 of the EXIM Policy. In view of the above reasonings, the impugned order therefore, cannot sustain and is hereby set aside with consequential relief, to the appellant.
-
2009 (5) TMI 417
Hospital equipments- Notification No. 64/88/Cus- . The issue involved in this case is whether the appellants is eligible for the benefit of notification 64/88-Cus.granting exemption to the import of the machineries, provided, the conditions are fulfilled. In this case, we find that the appellant has not fulfilled the first and foremost condition of producing a certificate from DGHS for claiming the exemption. In the absence of any such certificate, the benefit of the Notification of 64/88 is not available to the appellant. Held that- We find that the Adjudicating Authority was correct in holding that the appellant is not eligible for the benefit of the Notification of 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-98 and hence in view of this, and also respectfully following the decision of the Coordinate Bench in the case of Central India Institute of Medical Science and Others v. CC (ACC), Mumbai, we hold that the confirmation of the demand of the duty as has been done by the Adjudicating authority is correct. The impugned Order to that extent is upheld and the appeal filed by the appellant on this point is rejected.
-
2009 (5) TMI 416
Exemption- Notification No. 21/2002-Cus.- The respondents imported an old and used “Cutter Suction Dredger” in operational condition along with “Standard spares and accessories, pipes”, etc. including Multicat-2 numbers and Anchor Boat - 1 number and “Dredging Pumping Unit” to be used with Cutter Suction Dredger- 2 numbers, “Engines” -2 numbers along with “Standard spares and accessories” under Charter Agreement between Jung Hsing Marine Construction Co. Ltd. and the Respondent on re-export basis. The goods were classified under Chapter Heading 8905 10 00 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 claiming the benefit of NIL rate of duty under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002. The Assistant held that benefit of exemption notification was not given to those goods which are not integral parts of the dredger. The respondents appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals). The Commissioner (Appeals) partially allowed the appeal of the respondent and held that the following goods falling under Chapter 89051000 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 would be entitled for the benefit of the exemption notification. In the light of the decision of Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin v. Jan De Nul N.V. - held that- the commissioner (Appeals) has not taken into account exclusion clause. In view of this, there is merit in Revenue’s appeal and we allow the same by setting aside the impugned order and restoring the order-in-original.
-
2009 (5) TMI 312
Extension of warehousing periods - we find that the appellants did not apply for extension of the warehousing period to the Commissioner either within the warehousing period or within the period up to which the Commissioner could have extended the same. We also find that the appellants did not apply to the Chief Commissioner for extension of the warehousing period. – On application for extension of period three years after its expiry, Commissioner of Customs (Port) has permitted to clear the goods by paying Customs duty at the rate that prevailed on the date of expiry of warehousing period with interest - Hence, the communication from the department to the appellants asking them to pay duty and interest with reference to the expiry of the warehousing period in March and August, 2001, is, therefore, legal and proper and such communication cannot be considered as granting extension of the warehousing period since the Commissioner had no power to grant extension beyond six months. As such, the order appealed against does not require any interference. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed
-
2009 (5) TMI 257
Penalty and redemption fine - The dispute between the parties is that heavy metal scrap without being shredded whether can be imported after 19-9-05 i.e. the date of prohibition of unshreded scrap published in Public Notice No. 53/2004-09 dated 19-9-2005. – Import of only shredded scrap permissible under notice ibid -
This case is of export of heavy metal scrap to India one day after the cut off date i.e. 19-9-05. We find that public notice has not come in the Gazette of India. But the restriction is imposed in public interest - Therefore, we hold that arrival of the goods after the cut off date is not relevant but any arrival on or after 19-5-2009 should comply to the requirement of public interest. But the goods not being found hazardous, the appellant can get concession in respect of redemption fine and penalty. - So far as the Revenue’s contention on valuation is concerned, we are unable to find whether any opportunity was given to the appellant to plead on the question of valuation. That was not done from the date of adjudication. Therefore, Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly allowed the order of adjudication to remain untouched on that ground. We also agree with him and do not interfere with the valuation. In the result, Revenue succeeds partly so far as redemption fine is concerned.
-
2009 (5) TMI 213
Smuggling - illegall import – computer parts brought into country from illegal routes - recovery of fake bills in the course of search made the transactions questionable - We do appreciate that smuggling is done under concealment in the mind of smuggler. The concealed facts come to see the light of day only when the process of law unearths the same. We have noticed that the entire design of the appellant was discovered by search – connivance of parties and their monus operandi established by materials on record - confiscation and penalty is sustainable - However, we noticed that the penalty imposed is disproportionate to the gravity of the offence when habitual offence alleged is not corroborated by any evidence on record. Therefore the cases call for reduction of penalty and we reduce the same.
-
2009 (5) TMI 212
DEEC licences - Imported Sealed Lead Acid Maintenance Free Batteries (SLAMFB) against transferred Value Based Advance Licences availing exemption from Customs duty extended under Notification No. 79/95-Cus. & No. 203/92-Cus. - We find that the input allowed to be imported for the export product personal computers AT/XT is ‘battery’ as per the Standard Input Output Norms (SION) in force at the material time as recorded in the impugned order. – respondent who imported batteries against advance licences purchased by it after the original importer had fulfilled the export obligation was under no obligation to establish nexus between the batteries and the export product to avail the exemption extended under Notification Nos. 79/95 and 203/92. In the circumstances we find that the appeal filed by the Revenue is devoid of merit. The appeal is rejected. - The consignments were allowed clearance granting exemption against DEEC licences after the importers produced a certificate from the Senior Technical Officer, NIC. As the certificate was to the effect that the batteries could find use in the manufacture of, among others, computers, the authorities consciously allowed the exemption. Therefore, the adjudicating authority rightly held that larger period could not be validly invoked to recover exemption availed by the importer.
-
2009 (5) TMI 189
Vide the impugned order, “Polypropylene mesh” imported in running length (roll form) has been classified under CTH 58039090 which covers “Gauze other than narrow fabrics of heading 58.06” as the goods are akin to gauze, and held to attract merit rate of duty of 20% + 16% ad valorem, rejecting the claim of the importers for classification under CTH 90219090 (CTH 9021 covers “orthopaedic appliances … hearing aids and other appliances which are worn or carried, or implanted in the body to compensate for a defect or disability”) but extending the benefit of concessional rate of duty under item No. 119 vide list 8 (Sl. No. 94C) of the Table annexed to the Notification No. 21/02-Cus. dt. 1-3-02 as amended. The importer is in appeal against the classification of the goods, while the Revenue has filed an appeal against extension of benefit of the notification. - We, hold that the goods are not covered by description under CTH 9021. – Item being in running length can also not be considered as an artile of plastic so it should not be classified under the category of plastic articles under CTH 3926 90 99 – Tarriff item CTH 5803 90 90 is more appropriate – assessee’s appeal dismissed – revenue’s appeal is allowed
-
2009 (5) TMI 185
Art silk sarees have been confiscated for not corresponding to the declared description and the value, under the provisions of Section 113(ii) of the Customs Act, 1962 - submission of the exporters that in the absence of any evidence of any contemporary export of identical goods at lower price, declared value of the export goods cannot be rejected in terms of Section 114, requires to be accepted in the light of the ratio of the Tribunal’s decision in Advance Exports v. CC, Kandla – [2007 - TMI - 2324 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD] - plea that sale proceeds of goods exported under two Shipping Bills have been realized and therefore the amount remitted has to be accepted as the price of the goods is also a contention which merits acceptance - charge of over invoicing of art silk sarees is set aside as not sustainable. – Confiscation not justified
-
2009 (5) TMI 182
Absolute confiscation of 30.175 Kgs. of silver seized from the appellant - appellant is correct in his submission that since the confiscated silver was less than 100 Kgs. and was in the form of bars not weighing more than 30 Kgs. each, the seizure itself should not have taken place, in the light of CBEC Circular F.No. 394/233/88-CUS (AS) dated 11-6-1990 - we set aside the confiscation and penalty and allow the appeal
-
2009 (5) TMI 146
Penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 114(iii) of the Customs Act. The appellant was working as Data Entry Operator at Customs Freight Station (CFS) located at Nhava Sheva – allegation is that he abetted in drawback fraud - I am unable to sustain the above penalty inasmuch as the appellant has been penalised for the offence of abetment without there being any finding against the main offenders, namely, the exporter-firm and its partners. The impugned order expressly states that the firm and its partners are rot traceable and therefore proceedings against them are kept in abeyance. There can be no finding of abetment of any offence without a clear finding of such offence against the main offender
-
2009 (5) TMI 117
Detention orders - Held that:- As we have not embarked upon an examination of the detaining authority's 'satisfaction' with regard to prejudicial activities because we find that this ground itself, i.e., of imminent likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail, is sufficient to decide the present petition. Since we have come to the conclusion that there was no material before the detaining authority on the basis of which she could have arrived at the satisfaction that there was imminent likelihood of the petitioner being released on bail, the detention order is liable to be set aside. It is so set aside. The petitioner is entitled to be released provided he is not required in any other case. The writ petition stands allowed to this extent.
-
2009 (5) TMI 106
Confiscation, redemption fine, penalty - the only question to be decided in this case is whether the goods are liable to confiscation or not in view of the fact that the goods imported were of Indian origin but declaration of country as origin as Dubai. This is clearly an omission which renders the goods liable to confiscation. Similarly, manipulating the documents after it was noted is also a very serious omission on the part of appellants. For confiscation of the goods under Section 111 and for imposition of penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962, mens rea is not required. Therefore there is no need to go into bona fide of the activities at all. - It appears that in the present case there is no revenue implication – confiscation is justified - fine is reduced – penalty set aside
-
2009 (5) TMI 92
Notification No. 64/88-Cus dt. 1-3-88 – exemption to Hospital equipments - grant by the notification is also subjected to monitoring by the Health Service Department of the Govt - Revenue brings to our notice that when the Directorate General of Health Services has found violation of the notification conditions in terms of letter dated 19-3-01 that was enough for Revenue to proceed against the appellant who failed to comply post import conditions as per notification – when DGHS is not satisfied with compliance of notification, benefit of notification can not be granted - we are guided by the Apex Court decision in Jaslok Hospital & Research Centre so we dismiss the appeal of the appellant in toto, except waiver of penalty in view of compliance to Notification till issuance of letter by DGHS – appeal partly allowed
-
2009 (5) TMI 89
Connector-socket Female 4p – exemption under Sl. No. 244 of Notification No. 21/2002 – in the present case, the words of Heading 8536 “plugs, sockets, lamp holders and other connectors” were not mentioned the earlier tariff description in 1986. Further, the present notification No. 21/20-Cus. granted benefit to “Connectors” No. heading/sub-heading No. was mentioned. - I find that Notification No. 21/02- Cus. granted exemption benefit to “connector”, which covers all connectors of different variety as there is no mention of particulars variety or sub-heading number in the notification. – revenue appeal rejected
-
2009 (5) TMI 88
Application for extension of warehousing period for six months from 29th of November 2001 was also applied for by the appellant on 26-11-2000 but no response was received by them. – applications remained undecided - Department should have taken timely action for accepting/rejecting their application for extension of warehousing period. In my opinion, when there is provision for extension of warehousing period and the appellant applied for extension for warehousing period before expiry of warehousing period, which was not rejected by the Commissioner, it is unjust and improper to hold that warehousing period was expired on 29-11-2001. - the appeal is allowed by way of remand to the original adjudicating authority for assessing the appellant’s duty liability at the rate prevalent on the date of clearance of the goods and after examining the applicability of Notification No. 53/1997-Cus, dt. 3-6-1997.
|
