|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 118 Records
-
2009 (7) TMI 1128
... ...
... ... ..... s. He confiscated the goods for misdeclaration of the value with option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1 lakh and imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/-. Hence the appeal. 3. We have heard both sides. We note that the Commissioner has taken into account the value of new machine and then worked out the value by extending abatement. He has also accepted the submission of the importer that they were importing machine for actual user and directed the importer to give written intimation that the machine would be installed in the location indicated in the SSI Registration and that the authorities were free to verify the installation and continued operation of the machine in the factory for the next few years. We therefore uphold the enhanced value adopted by the Commissioner. Since the value of the machine was misdeclared, confiscation and penalty is also sustained. We, therefore uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. (Order dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2009 (7) TMI 1117
... ...
... ... ..... he letter head of the importer in the CHA rsquo s premises, that itself cannot be considered as a ground for visiting the appellant with penalty under the provisions of Section 112(a) inasmuch as that for imposing penalty under Section 112(a), it has to be brought on record that the appellant had abetted in the offence committed by the importer. In the case before us, there is nothing on record, nor there are any statements that implicate or the appellant had directed or advised to file the bill of entries or mis-declare the country of origin in order to pay lesser amount of duty. In the absence of any evidence which would directly implicate the appellant, we are of the considered view that the impugned order which upholds the imposition of penalty u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 is unsustainable. 6. Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons, the impugned order is liable to set aside and we do so. The appeal is allowed with consequential relief, if any. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2009 (7) TMI 1115
... ...
... ... ..... led to any immunity under the law. Therefore penalty of Rs. 20.00 lakhs imposed by Authority below is confirmed against him. 8. So far as the involvement of Shri Ashok Kumar Jha is concerned, it appears that he had conscious knowledge about the activity of M/s A.U. International, Shri Rakesh Arora and Shri Ajay Uppal. Law never permits abetment of offence, Shri Ashok Kumar Jha has proved himself to be one of the agents of the malicious design against Revenue. His oral evidence was also against him proving his nexus to the offence. He was aware of the import documents given by Shri Ashok Arora. Therefore his involvement cannot be ignored. There is also no cogent evidence to rule out his active involvement with the entire chain deceitful import. Having no alternative to appreciate innocence of Shri Ajay Kumar Jha, penalty of Rs. 5.00 lakhs imposed by Authority below, on him, is also confirmed. 9. In the result, both appeals are dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2009 (7) TMI 1113
... ...
... ... ..... olved in the illegal export. A penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- was imposed on the appellant on a finding that he had abetted the attempt to export the contraband. 3. We have heard both sides and perused the case records. We do not find in the order any clear finding by the Commissioner about the involvement of the appellant in the attempted export of contraband. The goods covered by the shipping bill were stuffed in the containers and the containers sealed at the exporter rsquo s premises under the supervision of Customs Officers. There is no evidence that the appellant had arranged stuffing of contraband in the containers during their transit to the port. We are satisfied that the appellant has made out a prima facie case against the penalty imposed on him. In the circumstances, we waive the pre-deposit of penalty of Rs. 1,00,00,000/- and stay the recovery of the amount pending disposal of the appeal. The stay application is allowed. (Pronounced and dictated in the open court)
-
2009 (7) TMI 1112
... ...
... ... ..... oms Laboratory. It was the responsibility of the CHA to ensure that everything went off smoothly. Based on such circumstantial evidence, the Commissioner found that the CHA had abetted the importer in trying to evade payment of appropriate duty due on the goods imported. 3. On a careful consideration of the case records and the submissions made by both sides, we find that the impugned order does not contain any reliable evidence on the basis of which the Commissioner could have validly arrived at a finding that the appellants had tampered with the test result and had thus helped the importer to evade payment of the appropriate duty on the impugned goods. We find that the appellants have made out a prima facie case against the penalty imposed on them under Section 112(a) of the Act. In the circumstances, we order that there shall be waiver of pre-deposit of the penalty imposed and stay of recovery thereof pending decision in the appeal. (Pronounced and dictated in Open Court)
-
2009 (7) TMI 1109
... ...
... ... ..... by the industries and on being satisfied, the Central Government issued a clarificatory Notification No. 95/94 on April 25, 1994. It was not a new notification granting exemption for the first time in respect of parts or power driven pumps to be used in the factory for manufacture of pumps but clarified the position and made the position explicit which was implicit. rdquo In the case before us, entry No. 347 in parent Notification 21/2002 dated 1-3-2002, granted exemption to parts of aeroplanes etc., falling under any chapter. It that be so, we find that ratio of decision of a Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court as reproduced above will cover the issue in favour of the applicant. Accordingly we find that the applicant has made out a prima facie case for the waiver of the pre-deposit of the amounts involved. Applications for waiver of the pre-deposit of the amounts involved is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeal. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2009 (7) TMI 1108
... ...
... ... ..... Sadrani. This admission corroborated the allegation that they had handed over pre-signed shipping bills to three different firms to use the CHA licence of the appellant. The enquiry officer dealt with the evidence minutely and came to conclusion that several regulations under which the licence was issued were violated by the present appellant. The appellate Tribunal also concurred with the Enquiry Officer. 3. Thus, there is concurrent finding of the fact by the two authorities that the present appellant had allowed the unauthorised persons to use their CHA licence for consideration and they also did not have sufficient supervision over the business being carried on under that CHA licence. In spite of lengthy arguments, the learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any question of law involved in the present matter. He also could not point out that the findings of the two authorities below are perverse in any manner. 4. In the result, the appeal stands dismissed.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1105
Smuggling - export of prohibited item - red sanders - forged export documents - suspension of CHA licence
-
2009 (7) TMI 1104
... ...
... ... ..... at the Commissioner (Appeals) in the impugned order held that the show-cause notice was issued on the basis of circumstantial evidence and statement of employee of the Transport Company. The appellant requested for cross-examination and employee of the Transport Company who named appellant and the same was denied by the adjudicating authority. The only evidence against the appellant is that in the consignment note, when it has been mentioned that the said goods had been booked by one Shri Ghanshyam Gupta and the address has been seen as 19, D-Street, Kolkata and not in the name of the present appellant. No other evidence on record to link the present appellant with the impugned goods. In the circumstances, I find merit in the contention of the appellant and the impugned order in respect of the present appellant is set aside and the appeal is allowed. The appellant is entitled to consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2009 (7) TMI 1070
... ...
... ... ..... Customs Duty The Applicant deposited the differential duty amount of Rs. 77,06,255/- alongwith the interest thereupon. This stand paid by the Applicant. Penalty Bench in light of the discussions supra grants immunity from penalty in excess of Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs Only) to the main Applicant. Bench grants immunity from penalty to the other Co-applicants. Prosecution Subject to the payment of penalty within 30 days, Bench grants immunity from prosecution to the Applicant and Co-applicant in so far this case is concerned. 9. The above immunities are granted under sub-section (1) of Section 127H of the Act. Attention of the applicant is also invited to the provisions of sub section (2) and (3) of Section 127H ibid. 10. This order of settlement shall be void in terms of sub-section (8) of Section 127C of the Act, if the Settlement Commission subsequently finds that it has been obtained by fraud or misrepresentation of facts. 11. All concerned are informed accordingly.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1066
... ...
... ... ..... at which both the parties agreed for sale and no contradictory evidence is on record of Revenue to deny this. Accordingly, the appellant should be directed to discharge the duty liability on the value of US 31,671 for the respective goods. 2. Learned DR supports the order of the authority below. 3. Heard both the sides and perused the record. 4. We are unable to find any ulterior motive of the appellant in the valuation claimed aforesaid by the appellant. There is no evidence on record to disturb the agreed value between the parties. It is noted from page 16 of the appeal folder that both parties to the deal have made clear that the consideration for sale shall be 31,671 US . In absence of any evidence to interfere, we direct that the sale 31671 US would be proper and this is taking note of the decision of the Tribunal cited above. 5. In the result, appeal is allowed with the aforesaid direction, modifying the impugned order. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2009 (7) TMI 1065
... ...
... ... ..... ose possession currency was seized have clearly admitted that they were sale proceeds of goats in Nepal and that the same belong to the appellant. Clearly the importation of currency is in contravention of FERA Regulations as well as provisions of Customs Act. Learned SDR fairly submits that the show cause notices did not indicate the specific provision/notification under which the export of goats were held to be prohibited. Taking entire facts and circumstances of the case into account, I hold that the confiscation of currency has to be upheld. However, I hold that this is a case where option of redemption may be warranted. In view of the above, while upholding the confiscation, I allow redemption of the confiscated currency on payment of fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty thousand only). 7. The penalty is reduced to Rs. 10,000/- (Rupees Ten thousand only). After adjusting the amount of redemption fine and penalty sustained, the balance amount shall be paid to the appellant.
-
2009 (7) TMI 1061
... ...
... ... ..... had advantage of hearing Revenue. While hearing the Appeals of Shri Krishna Tambi and Shri Sachin Tambi as aforesaid, we have categorically noticed that both these Appellants were not liable to charges. When we noticed that the goods became unclaimed there is no point to keep the matter pending further. We have found that the letter dated 6-8-2004 was issued by Shri Khandelwal authorising Shri Krishna Tambi to clear the impugned imported consignment. This has proved his nexus with the goods as well as his ownership. But the goods being unclaimed that was confiscated. Shri Ashok Kumar Khandelwal has therefore faced penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/-. Our observations in the Appeals of Shri Krishna Tambi and Shri Sachin Tambi make clear that Shri Ashok Kumar Khandelwal was the importer. Therefore there is no need to interfere to the penalty of Rs. 2,50,000/- imposed on him under Section 112 (a) of Customs Act, 1962 for which we dismiss his Appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2009 (7) TMI 1060
... ...
... ... ..... d be proved to be acrylic fibre. In this case, Revenue failed to prove its case for claimed classification. Burden of proof was not discharged. We have noticed aforesaid that test report of CRCL did not prove the impugned goods to be acrylic. Therefore, it is not possible to direct imposition of anti dumping duty when the goods itself remained in doubt for its identification and classification. Levy of anti-dumping duty is accordingly unwarranted in this case and the classification claimed by Appellant is upheld. 14. So far as the valuation is concerned when revenue could not come out with full rsquo proof and without any evidence to suggest that the goods should be classified under heading 5506.30, the appellant gets benefit of doubt. 15. In view of the aforesaid observations, all the three issues i.e. levy of anti-dumping duty, valuation and classification go in favour of Assessee for which the appellant succeeds and its appeal is allowed. (Order dictated in the open Court)
-
2009 (7) TMI 1051
... ...
... ... ..... ppear today to oppose the appeal of Revenue, there is no further scope to keep the matter pending since the appeal relates to the year 2006. 5. Following the decision of the Apex Court aforesaid and cited by Revenue and noticing that the imported goods became classifiable as per stand of Revenue, rate of duty should be applicable as has been held by learned Adjudicating Authority. Accordingly confiscation of the impugned goods has been rightly called for. Therefore, imposition of redemption fine is warranted when there is a differential duty of Rs. 24,90,651/- recoverable in terms of order of adjudication for mis-declaration calling for confiscation. Accordingly, it is considered proper to impose redemption fine of Rs. 10 lakhs as suggested by the learned DR in the course of hearing. 6. In the result, we modify the order in original to the above extent without touching rest of the part of the order and allow appeal of Revenue. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2009 (7) TMI 1050
... ...
... ... ..... ere available with the customs authorities, the adjudicating Commissioner also prima facie appears to be justified in applying the residual method of valuation in adopting the value of comparable goods contemporaneously imported at other ports. Since the values were mis-declared, we also find that the argument that no demand can be issued in such cases is not valid, apart from the fact that the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries (cited supra) related to the case of refund only and not to such cases of demand. 4. In view of the foregoing and taking into account the financial difficulties pleaded by the appellants, we direct predeposit of Rs. 10 lakhs towards duty within eight weeks from today and to report compliance on 8-10-09. Subject to compliance with the above direction, predeposit of the balance amounts shall remain waived and its recovery stayed during pendency of the appeal. (Order pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
-
2009 (7) TMI 1049
... ...
... ... ..... ished by Shri Dhanji Kachara and Vinod Khanna who were his brother and cousin respectively. 8. There was no evidence lead by any of the appellants to prove that they were not intimately and willfully connected with each other to perpetuate fraudulent activity of dubious export of readymade garments making over-valuation. Evil design of all the three appellants made the Revenue to suffer. The exported goods not being cleared in Dubai, the appellants proved their malafides also and for all the reasons aforesaid they were bound to face the charge. 9. In view of the aforesaid observations and finding, the three appellants do not deserve any consideration for exonerating them from penalty or even to reduce the penalty imposed in adjudication. Consequently, order passed by the learned adjudicating authority against these 3 (three) appellants imposing penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs on each of the appellants is confirmed and their appeals dismissed. (Pronounced in the open Court on 16-7-09)
-
2009 (7) TMI 1045
... ...
... ... ..... r natures of goods are sold by Gas Authority of India Limited (GAIL) remained unsupported by any evidence to equate the goods with that of imported goods. The appellant also failed to submit certificate of registration from Central Pollution Central Board or any other authority to prove its stand that the Slop oil imported was not a hazardous waste. Similarly, the authority found that the value declared by the appellant was questionable. With the aforesaid findings and consequences the order-in-original was passed. 4. Learned DR appearing for the Revenue supports case for Revenue relying on the order-in-original. 5. None being present for the appellant. We made exercise to notice the material facts on record and stated the same in paragraph 2 and 3 above. Having come to the conclusions that there is no material on record to impeach findings of learned Adjudicating Authority, his order is upheld and appeal of the appellant is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2009 (7) TMI 1044
... ...
... ... ..... ified goods under Section 123 of the Customs Act. Therefore, the burden is on the Revenue to prove that the goods were smuggled into India. The goods in question are also not prohibited goods and are freely traded in India. Therefore, it is their contention that the impugned Order is rightly passed. 4. In this case, the Revenue relied on the decision of the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of D. Bhoormull (supra). The Hon rsquo ble High Court of Bombay in the case of Aakash Enterprises reported in 2006 (205) E.L.T. 23 (Bom.), after considering the decision of Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of D. Bhoormull held that in cases of non-notified goods, the burden is on the Revenue to establish that the goods are smuggled into India. As in the present case, there is no evidence on record to show that the goods in question were smuggled into India, I find no infirmity in the impugned Order and hence, the Appeal is dismissed. (Pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
-
2009 (7) TMI 1042
... ...
... ... ..... Bills of Entry were filed for the barges and duty was paid no Bill of entry was filed for the tug for the reason that the tug was coming in for the project operation of lsquo Sethusamudram rsquo . When the project did not take off, prior permission was obtained from the customs to move tug from Chennai port to Vizag for repairs Bill of Entry was filed subsequently and duty of approximately Rs. 90 lakhs was paid. At the time of import it was not known that this project for which the impugned goods were imported would not be implemented. In the circumstances, we are of the view that, prima facie, no penalty is called for and prima facie case for dispensation is made out and we therefore, waive predeposit of penalty and stay the recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal. 3. Prayer for early hearing of the appeal is allowed as the duty amount and penalty exceeds Rs. One crore and the appeal is fixed for hearing on 8-9-09. (Order pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
|
