|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 118 Records
-
2009 (7) TMI 958
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Project import ... ... ... ... ..... 1986 (PIR). 2. emsp Prima facie there is nothing in Para 3 of the PIR to deny the project import benefit to a single machine. Further, we find that industrial plant comprises of one or more numbers of units and the imported machinery is for, lsquo substantial expansion of the unit of the existing industrial plant rsquo of the applicant irrespective of the fact that it is a single machine or a composite machine and the imported machinery is intended for substantial expansion of existing unit of an existing industrial plant of the appellants. The applicants also have produced a recommendation letter from the Department of Chemicals and Petro chemicals, recommending the extension of the benefit under the PIR to the machinery imported by them. Therefore, prima facie case has been made out for unconditional waiver. We therefore, waive pre-deposit of duty as well as penalty and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal (Order pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
-
2009 (7) TMI 957
Penalty - Quantum of ... ... ... ... ..... ng of the provision states that the penalty amount should be either the amount equivalent to duty evaded or Rs. 5,000/-whichever is greater. In the instant case, the Commissioner (Appeals) holds that as per the Section 112(a)(ii) the upper limit of imposition of penalty is Rs. 5,000/-, which is not proper. In fact if the value of the goods in question is less than Rs. 5,000/- then the penalty amount should be Rs. 5,000/- or if the value of the goods is more than Rs. 5,000/- then the penalty amount will be the amount equivalent to the value of the goods. From the perusal of the appeal, it is clear that the Commissioner (Appeals) has failed to interpret the provisions of law properly. 3. emsp The impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the original authority to quantify the amount of penalty as per the provisions of law, preferably within three months from the receipt of this order. 4. emsp In these terms the appeals are disposed of. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2009 (7) TMI 943
Appeal to Appellate Tribunal - Hearing - Early hearing ... ... ... ... ..... e Bench in the case, where the appeal or the application has been filed but is not listed before the Bench. It is apparent from the records that application before us was listed for hearing on 6-7-2009. Hence the Circular is not applicable to this case. The objection raised by the ld. SDR is frivolous and is rejected. We take up this application for disposal. 5. emsp We note that the revenue involved in the matter is more than Rs. 1.00 crore and the applicant is an American Citizen of Indian origin residing in New York, USA and his passport has been impounded by the Department. Furthermore, the Department has filed a complaint for prosecution before the ACMM against the applicant. 6. emsp Heard. 7. emsp We find that the grounds are sufficient as per the guidelines framed by this Tribunal for considering out of turn hearing. Hence, the application for early hearing is allowed and the registry is directed to list the appeal for final disposal on 28-8-2009. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2009 (7) TMI 890
Fraudulent import - Revenue Intelligence an intelligence was received by the Officers of DRI indicating fraudulent importers are importing super bikes in India by first disassembling them abroad and importing the said disassembled bikes in consignments by declaring them as spare parts - value of the imported bikes which are till date connected to the applicant though are tentatively valued at Rs. 50 lacs it cannot be lost sight of the fact that as yet investigation is not over and hence gravity of the offence cannot be judged at this stage. Having regard to the fact that a racket is operating which is resulting in causing loss of revenue to the Government by evasion of customs duty in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, this is not a fit case for release of the applicant on bail. In the result application stands rejected.
-
2009 (7) TMI 889
Provisional release –Car imorted - vehicular details are tampered – respondents contended that importer has nothing to do with the car and the duty payment has been made through illegal/Hawala channels, which require further investigation, importer has stated falsehood in his statement given under Section 108 of Customs Act, 1962 and has mislead the investigations – Held that:- When this Court indicated that if the petitioner is willing to provide bank guarantee for interim release of the vehicle, respondents were not justified in taking such an adamant stand. respondents directed to pay to the petitioner costs of this writ petition. Accordingly, the respondents shall pay an amount of Rs. 2000/- as costs to the petitioner, writ petition is disposed of with the above direction.
-
2009 (7) TMI 884
Mis-declarion of value and quantity to evade customs duty - adjudicating authority imposed penalties under Sec. 112(b) of the Customs Act on the ground that respondents were dealing with the goods which were liable for confiscation. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that they were not aware about the nature of the goods – Held that:- Tribunal found that the case of Pawan Kumar Gupta is guilty under Sec. 112(b) of the Customs Act but on consideration of the totality of the facts and circumstances, the penalty imposed was reduced from 1.5 crores to 5 lakhs, Since he has already been found guilty under Sec. 112(b) of the Customs Act and penalty has also been imposed on him, no interference is called for. appeal filed against Pawan Kumar Gupta is also accordingly dismissed.
-
2009 (7) TMI 840
Exim – licence – denial of renewal – export obligation - The order refused to grant or renew any licence to the petitioner company. It has serious consequences and would affect the business of the petitioners. The petitioners are, at the very least, entitled to know the basis for the authority arriving at such conclusion, particularly considering that the petitioners had contended that they had a value based licence and not a quantity based advance licence. - matter remanded back to DGFT
-
2009 (7) TMI 822
Fraudulent drawback benefits – misdeclaration the goods - in order to avail higher ineligible drawback incentive - dummy invoices for which no goods were supplied – Held that: - witnesses clearly established the intention to defraud the government by inflating the price and claiming higher drawback benefits - cross-examination of witnesses had clearly showed that there is a prima facie case of fraudulent availment of drawback benefits which is not actually due to him - Petition is not maintainable and hence is dismissed
-
2009 (7) TMI 804
Penalty - Misdeclaration of description and under valuation - mixed zinc scrap contained 70% by weight of aluminium scrap - noticed that in terms of quantity and value, the aluminium scrap was the major item and therefore the appropriate description should have been mixed aluminium scrap - Held that: - no substantial question of law - appeal is dismissed
-
2009 (7) TMI 732
Anti dumping duty - whether respondents are liable to pay anti-dumping duty on the import of Compact Florescent Lamps (CFL) from the Peoples Republic of China and Hong Kong based on Annexure B notification issued by the Central Government. Levy after expiry of notification providing for provisional levy. Notification later issued for definitive duty from date of provisional levy. Tribunal held that anti dumping duty cannot levied after expiry of previous notification. Tribunal not found later Notification invalid. Held that – Annexure B notification issued giving effect to it's provisions from the date of levy of provisional duty under Annexure A notification is consistent with the provisions of the Act and Rules. In other words, once provisional anti-dumping duty is levied for any goods, any subsequent import of such goods will attract anti-dumping duty if final orders provide for levy with effect from the date of provisional order. We are therefore of the view that the Tribunal went wrong in holding that anti-dumping duty cannot be levied or collected from the respondents after expiry of Annexure A notification.
-
2009 (7) TMI 730
Provisional clearance- the petitioners have prayed for orders on the respondent authorities to inter alia permit provisional clearance of the consignment imported by the petitioners under the Bill of Entry upon furnishing of security and/or execution of bond, in terms of the provisions of the Customs (Provisional Duty Assessment) Regulations 1963, and other consequential orders. Held that - If any such application is made, the same shall be decided strictly in accordance with law. It is made clear that this Court expresses no opinion on the contentions of Mr. Chowdhury on merits. It is expected that the application shall be disposed of by the Commissioner of Customs expeditiously.
-
2009 (7) TMI 725
Reward to informer – The plaintiff contends that the total value of the smuggled goods is about Rs. 83,29,519/- and hence he is entitled to 20% of the said value as reward, which works out to Rs. 16,64,591.38 ps. Held that – no legal right vested in plaintiff to be enforced by court of law. Reward eligibility depending on fulfillment of several conditions as per departmental guidelines. Allegation, if accepted leading to conclusion that plaintiff saw vessel carrying contraband goods and vessel was standard and such information given to sepoy of Customs Department. Person indulging in smuggling and destination to which unloaded contraband goods taken not seen by plaintiff. Written complaints not lodged with custom department. Information given even if true not satisfies requirements prescribed for reward. Thus the impugned order holding plaintiff as not an informer not entitled to reward, sustainable.
-
2009 (7) TMI 724
Prosecution – Exoneration in adjudication - The petitioner/authority had filed a private complaint under Section 200 of Cr. P.C for an offence punishable under Section 135 of Customs Act. Sustainability of prosecution proceedings when exonerated by Tribunal.
-
2009 (7) TMI 723
Suspension of licence – Natural Justice – Show Cause Notice accorded period of 30 days to CHA to reply. Order of suspension of licence before expiry of said period of 30 days. Petitioner commanded unheard. Held that – impugned order of suspension required to be set aside.
-
2009 (7) TMI 719
Release of conveyance – smuggling - A show cause notice has been issued calling upon the petitioner to show cause as to why the vehicle should not be confiscated in exercise of power under Section 115 of the Customs Act. Held that- power to release under section 110A of Custom Act, 1962 is discretionary. Show cause notice issued proposing confiscation. Authorities directed to complete adjudication expeditiously.
-
2009 (7) TMI 705
EXIM-Iron ore fines export- Department chemist reporting it as 64.6% on moisture free basis whereas export was in moist condition. Held that- report not acceptable as sample was not tested in condition in which goods were exported and report was submitted after three months of export. Report submitted by exporter stating Fe content as 62.03% accepted and export without licence found proper as Fe content as 62.03% accepted and export without licence found proper as Fe content was below 64% prescribed by EXIM Policy 2002-07. Department chemist giving his report of Fe content on moisture free basis held that- report not acceptable as sample was not tested in condition in which goods were exported. It was more so as analysis was done and report submitted after three months of export.
-
2009 (7) TMI 704
Medical, Surgical equipment- Wipro imported goods described as “Anaesthesia Ventilator System”. The goods were classified under CSH 9019 2090 of Customs Tariff. After clearance, a notice was issued to the appellants and the Original Authority, after due process of law, confirmed differential duty of Rs. 7,04,374/- against Wipro in respect of the goods cleared under these 2 Bills of Entry denying the exemption allowed to the goods at the time of their clearance. The equipments cleared under Bill of Entry Sl. No. 365826 dated 14-2-2007 was allowed clearance on payment of merit rate of duty. Held that-impugned equipment has composite functions with ventilator system approximately Rs. 10 to Rs. 12 lakhs as against anaesthesia equipment costing approximately Rs. 30,000 to Rs. 50,000/-. Impugned goods entitled to exemption benefit.
-
2009 (7) TMI 663
Prosecution- conviction-petitioner flew down to Karippur Airport from Dubai with primary gold of foreign origin weighting 3312 grams and a few other foreign items, he was intercepted at the Airport by the customs officials and on checking he was found possessing the above said contraband. As petitioner had no valid documents with him to import gold and other items he was arrested by customs officials and his statement (Ext. P10) under Section 108 of the Act was recorded. Courts below found that petitioner imported gold of foreign origin without valid document and without making disclosure of the same and thereby committed offence punishable under Section 135(1) (i) of the Act. Learned counsel submits that petitioner has already undergone sentence of imprisonment for one year awarded by learned magistrate and confirmed by the learned Additional Sessions judge and that of the fine of Rs.50,000/- awarded, Rs.25,000/- has al ready been deposited in the trial court as per the order of the appellate court. Learned counsel submitted that sentence awarded is excessive. Held that- conviction upheld.
-
2009 (7) TMI 662
Medical equipment- The issue involved in this case is the eligibility to exemption contained in Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 and 6/2006-CE. dated 1-3-2006 to “Ventilator used with Anaesthesia apparatus”. Both the notifications extended the concession to “Ventilator used with Anaesthesia apparatus”. After consulting literature on the product furnished by the appellants, the Commissioner (Appeals) found that the equipment was an integrated anaesthesia delivery system. Since, the machine’s function was anaesthesia delivery, but was also used for ventilation during surgery by incorporating ventilator function, such machines could not be called as “Ventilator used with Anaesthesia apparatus”. Held that- This appeal is filed by the revenue canvassing denial of the benefit of notifications to similar goods as Impugned in the above appeal filed by the importer seeks to vacate the Order-in-Appeal No. 93/2007 dated 26-7-2007. As we have held that the impugned goods ‘Ventilator used with Anaesthesia apparatus” are entitled to the disputed notification benefits, this appeal filed by the revenue is rejected.
-
2009 (7) TMI 648
Penalty- The exporters, their CHA and the shipping line in respect of export consignment covered by Shipping Bill are the appellants, who are aggrieved by the penalties imposed on them under Section 114 of the Customs Act. The exporter has also challenged the redemption fine imposed on them. A show-cause notice was issued by Commissioner of Customs to these appellants. The proposal, in that notice, to confiscate the goods under Section 113(g) of the Customs Act and impose penalties under Section 114(iii) of the Act was contested by the parties concerned. Held that- It is a common ground of these appeals that the penalties imposed on the appellants are harsh. Penalties on the exporter and the CHA are Rs. 2.60 lakhs each, which appears to have been determined at 10% of the FOB value of the goods. Under Section 114(iii) of the Act, the quantum of penalty shall not exceed the value of the goods as declared by the exporter or the value that is determined under the Act, whichever is the greater. The penalty on the above parties, is only about 10% of the FOB value of the goods. The penalty on the shipping line is Rs. 4.00 lakhs. By all means, the conduct of the shipping line is far more blameworthy and therefore, the higher penalty on them than what was imposed on the exporter and the CHA cannot be said to be unfair. However, a penalty of Rs 4.00 lakhs on the shipping line when compared to the penalty of Rs. 2.60 lakhs imposed on the exporter appears to be a little harsh.
|
