|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 101 to 118 of 118 Records
-
2009 (7) TMI 308
Whom can be given option to redeem the goods – Respondent claimed to be carrier of gold on behalf of another person - Section 125(1) states that if only the owner is not known, then a person from whose possession or custody such goods have been seized could have given an option to pay in lieu of confiscation such fine – In the instant case, according to the respondent himself the owner was Karimuddin as he had acted on behalf of Karimuddin. The question of the Tribunal exercising the jurisdiction u/s. 125 of the Customs Act and remit the matter to give an option to the respondent herein to redeem the goods was clearly without jurisdiction. - impugned order is set aside
-
2009 (7) TMI 288
It appears from the records that the respondent had imported certain goods without payment of appropriate duty and, later on, exported the same within the period prescribed by the proper officer of customs. The import was made through the New Custom House, Mumbai and the export through the Custom House at Nhava Sheva. When the Custom House of import raised a demand of duty, the party took the stand that no duty could be demanded as the goods had been exported within the time prescribed by the department. – Tribunal earlier remanded directing for appropriation of demand drawback as eventually exports made - above order of the Tribunal is directed against the Customs authorities in the New Customs House and is not addressed to any authority in the Nhava Sheva Customs House. Quantification of drawback of duty can be done at Nhava Sheva and the same cannot be done in the New Customs House. - Obviously, in this exercise, the Customs authorities at the port of import and those at the port of export should act in tandem. - In case the proper officer of Customs is faced with any insurmountable procedural difficulty in this matter, he can obtain appropriate orders from the appropriate superior administrative authority having control over both the Commissionerates. – Tribunal’s order should be implemented within 6 months
-
2009 (7) TMI 249
Rejection of refund claim - The appellants brought back the goods exported and for which they filed required Bill of Entry and paid custom duty along with interest - After making the payment of duty demand along with interest the appellant was informed that they have to pay the heavy demurrage charges - instead of making the demurrage charges, the appellants vide their letter addressed to the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, and informed about their intention for not clearing the goods against the above said Bill of Entry and further abandoning the said goods. After the said letter, the appellants sought refund of the amount deposited by them including the interest. - In the present case, the Bill of Entry was assessed with the direction to the appellants to pay import duty and interest and the same was complied with but the order permitting clearance of the goods for home consumption was not given by the proper officer under Section 47 of the Customs Act. The appellant has the right to relinquish his title on the goods under Section 23 of the Act as out of charges was not given by the proper officer under Section 47 of the Act. – impugned order is set aside – appeal is allowed
-
2009 (7) TMI 232
Selling imported goods in domestic market without fulfilling export obligation – goods imported with exemption of duty sold in domestic market immediately upon their import without letting buyers know about export obligation - The very fact that the buyer paid the duty amount also separately on those goods shows that were neither aware of export obligation nor party to violation of condition of import - And there is no evidence to show, nor it was brought to our notice by either of the sides that buyer had got a copy of Bill of Entry filed by importer and their payment to importer mentioned duty separately – Since buyer is neither importer nor have played any role in rendering the goods liable to confiscation; no penalty can be imposed on them. - argument that the provisional assessment and finalization of assessment was essential before the goods could be confiscated, cannot be accepted – held that act of selling imported goods in domestic market without fulfilling export requirement, rendered them liable to confiscation – On a transaction of big volume of imported goods being sold in domestic market, person in-charge of the importing company; cannot claim that he was not aware of it – he himself had admitted in his statement and had paid duty; further, immediately after clearance, the goods have been sold which shows that they had no intention of fulfilling the obligation at the time of importation. Under these circumstances, it is quite clear that Section 111(o) is attracted and consequent penalty is imposable
-
2009 (7) TMI 168
... ...
... ... ..... he Tribunal. 2. We have considered para 10 of the judgment. We find from the judgment that the Appellants herein had misdeclared the PMV value of the goods. This is supported by the evidence on record. Once that be the case even if the FOB contract was on record, in our opinion, considering the finding recorded, the penalty cannot be said to be contrary to law. We, therefore, find no merits in this Appeal which is accordingly dismissed.
-
2009 (7) TMI 165
Penalty - Quantum of redemption fine - Shipping Line has loaded the containers on the vessel without obtaining the LEO which is in contravention of Customs Law - Held that: - considering the case as technical breach, the penalties imposed on the Shipping Line were reduced to 40%.
-
2009 (7) TMI 164
Guilty of committing offences under the Customs Act - if adjudication proceedings as well as criminal proceedings are permissible, both can be initiated simultaneously?
Held that:- In case of converse situation namely where the accused persons are exonerated by the competent authorities/Tribunal in adjudication proceedings, one will have to see the reasons for such exoneration to determine whether these criminal proceedings could still continue. If the exoneration in department adjudication is on technical ground or by giving benefit of doubt and not on merits or the adjudication proceedings were on different facts, it would have no bearing on criminal proceedings. If, on the other hand, the exoneration in the adjudication proceedings is on merits and it is found that allegations are not substantiated at all and the concerned person(s) is/are innocent, and the criminal prosecution is also on the same set of facts and circumstances, the criminal prosecution cannot be allowed to continue.
In these circumstances even though the petitioner is entitled for quashing, but since the second respondent has approached the Supreme Court and the SLP filed by them is still pending, the matter is adjourned sine die awaiting further orders by the Apex Court with liberty to the parties to revive the present petition, if required.
-
2009 (7) TMI 163
Cancellation of bail granted to the respondent by the Court of Addl. Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi vide order dated 18-12-2008 under Section 439(2) Cr.P.C. seeked
Held that:- Merely because there is a serious offence against the respondent, it cannot be a ground for cancellation of bail which has been granted by the ACMM concerned after taking into consideration all the facts of the case as well as the release of one of the co-accused.
The respondent has been released on bail after he remained in custody for a period of 15 months. Cancellation of bail cannot be ordered on the merits of the case. No grounds which are required to have been established for the purpose of seeking cancellation of bail have been brought to my notice by the learned counsel for the petitioner inasmuch as the circumstances when bail can be recalled. Petition dismissed.
-
2009 (7) TMI 158
Refund - Limitation - Protest ... ... ... ... ..... of the Customs Act, the period of limitation has been prescribed in regard to refund of duty and the grant of refund cannot be a ground to ignore the limitation period, except in the specific cases as shown under the provisos to Section 27 of the Customs Act. However, it is not necessary to refer the case to a Larger Bench on such issue, as it is not the case of the appellant-company that it has paid the duty under mistake of law. 8. The only plea as was taken in the Writ Petition(s) was that the company was liable to pay the duty 70 and 80 , whereas, they claimed and charged the duty 100 and 120 respectively. 9. Having heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and taking into consideration the provisions of law as discussed above, we find no ground made out to interfere with the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 10. There being no merits, the writ appeal is dismissed, but in the facts and circumstances of the case, there shall be no order as to costs.
-
2009 (7) TMI 146
Overvaluation to claim higher drawback / DEPB - the export consignments which were to be exported under DEPB claim or drawback claim had been brought on the basis of carting order/issued by the Dy. Commissioner much before the filing of the Shipping Bill and there is no dispute about the fact that the invoices and the packing lists presented to the Customs at the time of obtaining carting order mentioned much inflated quantity and value of the goods and in some cases, description of the goods was also different. - There is no explanation as to why at the time of obtaining carting order, the invoices mentioning much higher quantity and value had been presented. - We, therefore, hold that the provisions of Sections 113 and 114 of Customs Act, 1962 are attracted to this case and the goods have been rightly confiscated and penalties have been rightly imposed
-
2009 (7) TMI 141
100% EOU – software EOU - Import by STP unit - based company engaged in manufacture of telecom equipment. - Notification No. 140/91-Cus., dated 22-10-91 – held that - it is absolutely clear that the purpose of import of this equipment by M/s. Converge was to install the same in the MTNL’s premises for trial and thereafter possible sale. It has been pleaded by the appellants that the maintenance of the equipment by M/s. Converge during the period of trial at the MTNL’s premises involved software testing and the software development includes software testing. - This plea is absolutely incorrect - since the basic conditions of duty free import under Notification No. 140/91-Cus., that is used of the imported equipment for software development data entry, data processing etc. for export has not been fulfilled, M/s. Converge are not eligible for duty exemption - Since the imported equipment was neither installed in the premises of M/s. Converge in the software technology park nor used for software development for export, the condition Nos. 4 and 7 of para 1 of the notification have also been violated. – demand, interest, redemption find and penalty confirmed.
-
2009 (7) TMI 140
Advance Licence – Exim – foreign trade policy – revalidation of advance licence - The request for transferability was examined and was found to be in order and an endorsement to the same effect was made. The said endorsements were made on 1st November, 1993, 9th September, 1993, 27th September, 1993 and 25th August, 1993 respectively. - Subsequently, the petitioner applied for revalidation of the licences for an extended period. The request was rejected by the DGFT inter alia on the ground that “there is no such provision contained in EXIM Policy 1992-97 for revalidation of advance licences for which transferability has already been ordered.” – held that - Thus when a duty free licence is transferred, the validity of that licence is the balance period mentioned in the licence or six months, whichever is more. The words ‘date of transfer’ in sub-para (v) is the ‘date of transfer’ by the original holder of the licence to a third party. - Revalidated licences will be confined to the period mentioned in the licence itself - matter is remanded back to the DGFT to consider the request of the petitioner for revalidation of the licence in terms of para 125 of the Handbook of Procedure
-
2009 (7) TMI 126
Pilfered goods - Duty liability - Duty liability of custodians of imported goods before clearance - held that - Section 45(3) of Customs Act, 1962 inserted to provide for recovery of duty from person in charge of imported goods in Customs area - Section 45(3) ibid to be restricted to mean persons approved who have approved warehouses in terms of Sections 9 and 10 ibid and not statutory bodies like Port Trusts - Possession of goods by Port Trust is by virtue of powers conferred under Port Trusts Act - Port Trust neither approved person nor can be notified one, hence not liable - Liability only of persons approved by Commissioner of Customs - Port Trust a statutory body under control of G.O.I. - No purpose served by one arm of Govt. imposing duty on another arm which is discharging statutory duties
-
2009 (7) TMI 107
Refund Claim – Assessment – Short landing of imported goods – held that - it was the responsibility of the assessing/proper officer to re-assess (in view of provisions of sub-section (4) of Section 17) and correctly determine the duty leviable in accordance with law before clearing the goods for home consumption. He having failed to do so, had caused great injustice to the appellant / importer and it was open for the importer/assessee to file an application for refund under Section 27 of the Act without taking recourse to filing of an appeal - orders passed in appeal by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the learned Tribunal are thus not sustainable - the claim of refund of excess duty paid by the appellant-importer/assessee in the facts of the case is allowed.
-
2009 (7) TMI 97
Illegal Export – grant of bail - It is alleged that the appellant used to mail consolidated requirements by means of packing slips in the name of individual customers to the e-mail I.D. of the first accused. The first accused used to procure different drugs indicated by the appellant by the local pharmacy and pack separately as per packing slips and dispatch the same to the customers abroad through airmail and RMS post office at Coimbatore – held that - The licensees, therefore, were, thus, required to comply with the specific requirements of the Act and the Rules. It is not denied or disputed that the appellant neither applied for nor granted any authority to export by the Narcotic Commissioner or any other Officer who is authorized in this behalf – Bail appeal rejected.
-
2009 (7) TMI 72
Power of commissioner (appeals) – power to remand the case - the law is very clear that the Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand the matter to the adjudicating authority. In this view of the matter, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the matter is to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the appeal afresh after hearing the parties in accordance with the law as expeditious as possible, in any case within a period of two months from the receipt of this order – revenue appeal dismissed – order of remand by commissioner (appeals) set aside.
-
2009 (7) TMI 70
Cross Examination of the officer who has taken the samples – held that - The records relating to taking of the samples shall be made available to the petitioners for their perusal. If the Officer, who did the analysis, is not available, his successor-in office along with the records concerned shall be made available for the cross-examination of the petitioners – further - If the petitioners invoked the appellate remedy, normally, they would have paid the amount levied. Because this Court entertained this Original Petition and granted unconditional stay for the last 7 years, the petitioners were saved from paying any amount. We take note of the maxim that 'act of Court shall prejudice none'. By the Act of this Court, the Revenue also cannot be prejudiced.
-
2009 (7) TMI 7
Import of Second Hand Machinery – Actual User Condition – Violation of Condition – Transfer of Second Hand Machinery illegally - the import would be exempted from the prohibition subject to “Actual User Condition”. If that condition is violated, provisions of S.111(o) of the Customs Act would be attracted. - There is no dispute that in this case, 16 second-hand printing machines, which fall in the category of second-hand capital goods, were imported in the name and in favour of the M/s.Classic Pack - all of them were offloaded initially at the premises of Baban Sharma and later on, 11 of those machines were found in the premises of Fayyaz Binding Works of Mohammed Illyas Qureshi. Remaining 5 machines out of that lot of 16 printing machines could not be located – held that these machines are liable to confiscation under Section 111 and appellant is liable to be penalised.
....
|
