|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 99 Records
-
2009 (9) TMI 1043
... ...
... ... ..... under the DEPB Scheme. The difference drawn by the Supreme Court in the above judgments make it clear that under the DEEC Scheme, the clearance is allowed duty free, whereas under DEPB Scheme, the exporters are issued DEPB scrips which allows them specific amounts to be utilised for payment of Customs duty. Therefore, the importers, who use DEPB scrips, pay duty not by cash but only by way of credit. This is clear from the judgment of the Supreme Court extracted above. Therefore, the goods cleared under DEPB Scheme cannot be treated an exempted goods, but they can only be treated to be duty-paid goods and therefore, the interest is payable as per Section 61(2) of the Act. The debit of any amount under the DEPB Scheme is a mode of payment of duty on the imported goods and cannot be treated as exempted goods, unlike the goods under DEEC Scheme. We are unable to answer the questions raised by the appellant in its favour. Therefore, the civil miscellaneous appeals are dismissed.
-
2009 (9) TMI 1013
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CESTAT is right in dismissing the appeal of Revenue and holding that no redemption fine can be imposed and penalty levied when the goods are physically not available for confiscation?
Held that: - as the goods are not available for confiscation no redemption fine can be imposed - before the Tribunal the issue of penalty was not at all involved. We find that no substantial question of law is involved - appeal dismissed - decided partly in favor of assessee.
-
2009 (9) TMI 977
... ...
... ... ..... elay condoned. The appeal is admitted for hearing.
-
2009 (9) TMI 975
Bail application - seizure of Maruti Zen Car carrying a huge quantity of contraband i.e. 22.855 kg of heroin - It is alleged that the recovered contraband were supplied by the present petitioner to the co-accused persons - Held that: - it does appear that the petitioner was not in conscious possession of the said contraband. therefore, I am satisfied that there are reasonable grounds for believing that the petitioner is not guilty of the offences for which he has been charged. As regards the question as to whether he is likely to commit any offence while on bail, no circumstance has been brought to my notice which would indicate that there is such a likelihood. It is also not the case of the State that the petitioner has been involved in any other NDPS related cases. In this view of the matter, the petitioner is directed to be released on bail on furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹ 50,000/- with two sureties of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial court - the petitioner be released on bail on his furnishing bail bond in the sum of ₹ 1 lakh - petition allowed - decided partly in favor of petitioner.
-
2009 (9) TMI 974
Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the CESTAT is right in dismissing the appeal of revenue and holding that no redemption fine can be imposed and penalty levied when the goods are physically not available for confiscation?
Held that: - as the goods are not available for confiscation no redumption fine can be imposed - In so far as penalty is concerned, the Commissioner of Customs reduced the penalty from ₹ 60,000/to ₹ 5,000/- - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2009 (9) TMI 971
... ...
... ... ..... cided at all by the High Court, and, therefore, they were not the subjectmatter of the S.L.P. in the Supreme Court. Therefore, these matters are to be decided in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court. 2. These facts have not been disputed by the other side, but the learned counsel for the other side submits that after the Supreme Court gave its judgment, this Court applied the judgment, irrespective of pendency of these petitions to the present petitioners as well, which, in other words, would mean that the orders impugned in these petitions against the petitioners already stand revoked. Therefore, we need not pass any further orders. However, notices have been served on the petitioners in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court. If the petitioners are aggrieved of those notices, they are at liberty to take any appropriate remedy which may be available to them in law, irrespective of the outcome of these Writ Petitions. These Writ Petitions stand disposed of.
-
2009 (9) TMI 968
... ...
... ... ..... of unjust enrichment is not applicable on redemption fine and penalty. To substantiate his claim he place reliance on Customs Appeal No.56/2008 in the case of M/s. United Spirit Ltd., Vs. CC (I), wherein the Hon ble High Court of Bombay vide its order dated 25/06/2009 held that the principles of unjust enrichment would not arise in case of redemption fine and penalty. 10. Heard. 11. On careful examination of the submissions made by both the parties, I note that the Hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the matter of United Spirits Ltd., (supra) has held that the doctrine of unjust enrichment is not applicable in the matter of redemption fine and penalty. I remand back the matter to the original adjudicating authority for denovo adjudication in the light and directions of this Tribunal in respondent’s own case vide order dated 04/12/2008 only to the duty aspect not on redemption fine and penalty. With these observations, the appeal is disposed off. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 941
Valuation - related person - the decision in the case of MODI SENATOR (I) PVT. LTD. Versus CC. (IMPORTS & GENERAL), NEW DELHI [2009 (3) TMI 808 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI] contested, where it was held that mere holding of shares by one party with proportional nominee Directors in the other company is not amounting to relationship to disqualify the transaction price - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2009 (9) TMI 938
What is the classification of the four individual products namely Proactiv Solution Revitalizing Toner, Proactiv Solution Renewing Cleanser, Proactiv Solution Repairing Lotion and Proactiv Solution Refining Mask?
Whether CVD is required to be paid at the time of import of the Category-I products on a value determined under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944?
Whether CVD is required to be paid at the time of import of Category-II Products on a value determined under Section 4 or Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944?
-
2009 (9) TMI 936
... ...
... ... ..... JJ. ORDER Appeal dismissed.
-
2009 (9) TMI 873
... ...
... ... ..... exercise to be undertaken only when the final hearing of the appeal takes place and not at this prima facie stage as it cannot be said that prima facie the classification upheld by the adjudicating authority is so perverse as to warrant interference at this interim stage. The issue of classification of the remaining 7 disputed products is also highly debatable and it cannot be held prima facie that they fall for classification under the headings claimed by the importers. 6. Having regard to the above discussion, we direct predeposit of a sum of Rs. 50,00,000/- (Rupees fifty lakhs only) within a period of eight weeks from today and on such deposit, predeposit of the balance amounts shall stand waived and recovery thereof stayed during the pendency of the appeal. Failure to comply with the above direction shall result in vacation of stay and dismissal of the appeal without prior notice. 7. Compliance to be reported on 2nd December, 2009. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 868
... ...
... ... ..... lty of Rs. 5,00,000/- would be excessive if the goods are exported. In view of these circumstances, and since the appellant want to export these goods, for the purpose of export, I reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs) and penalty to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh). The appellant are given this option to export the goods on payment of reduced redemption fine and reduced penalty within a period of one month from the date of this order and on export of the goods, the appellant would be eligible for drawback, admissible under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. If, however, the appellant do not export the goods and decide to take the goods back, they would have to pay redemption fine and penalty, as mentioned in the impugned order. The impugned order stands modified as above, and the appeal and the stay application stand disposed off, as above. Miscellaneous application is also disposed off. Order is Dasti. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 862
Redemption fine - penalty - valuation of imported old/used Photo Copiers/Computers - The Adjudicating Authority did not accept the value as declared by the appellants and subjected the goods for Chartered Engineer’s inspection and for valuation. The Chartered Engineer appointed by the revenue appraised the subject goods and gave certificate regarding the value of the goods - Held that: - The country of origin, the Model No. etc. is of no consequence, as the goods which were imported and cleared are old and used computers is accepted by the revenue in the Order-in-Original. If that be so, the facts are not different, as the fact in all these cases, is that there is only import of old and used Photo Copiers and Computers.
The Tribunal found that the value as fixed by the Chartered Engineer’s certificate is an enhanced value from the one declared by the assessee. That duty was imposed reckoning the value as fixed by the Chartered Engineer’s certificate. Therefore, the redemption fine imposed being on such rate as fixed in the certificate issued by the Chartered Engineer, there was escalation in the redemption fine and penalty imposed. Thus, the Tribunal has given its own reasons in the matter of fixing a rate at which the fine should be imposed.
The penalty imposed by the lower authorities which is 5% of the value of the imported goods as has been certified by the Chartered Engineer is upheld and the redemption fine is to be calculated and collected to the extent of 15% of the value as has been certified by the Chartered Engineer in all these cases.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2009 (9) TMI 859
Confiscation - unsorted waste paper in six containers being heavily contaminated with domestic waste - Held that: - . When the other waste material is of domestic waste origin and 2/3rd part by weight is under OGL and l/3rd part by weight is under non-OGL, the domestic waste falls under Chapter Heading 38.25 of the Customs Tariff/EXIM Code 3825 10 00 of the Foreign Trade Policy and thus is not freely importable. Goods in question have thus rightly been held liable to confiscation under the Customs Act/Foreign Trade Policy/Hazardous Wastes Rules - Since liability to confiscation of goods is upheld, penalty is also sustainable, however, penalty reduced to ₹ 10,000/- - appeal allowed - decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2009 (9) TMI 858
... ...
... ... ..... ms Act to attract penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act. 3. The contention of Revenue is that this Bench of the Tribunal in various decision held that the Commissioner has power to remand even after amendment after relying on the decision of Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Umesh Dhaimode - 1998 (98) E.L.T. 584 (S.C.) and in the case of Commr. of Central Excise, Ahmedabad-I v. Medico Labs. - 2004 (173) E.L.T. 117 (Gujarat) . 4. I find that in the present case the adjudicating authority imposed the penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellant as the appellant issued invoices in respect of the confiscated goods having different descriptions of the goods and value. The Commissioner (Appeals) simply sent back the matter to the adjudicating authority to look into the issue for imposition of penalty on the appellant afresh. In these circumstances I find no infirmity in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. (Pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 857
100% EOU - whether the appellant, an export oriented unit, is liable to pay the interest for the period during which the capital goods (procured without payment of duty) were warehoused in export oriented unit - Held that: - It is seen from the records that the appellants had warehoused the goods in 2003 and the validity of the said bond is up to 2008. It is undisputed that the appellants were granted permission for debonding in 2007. Capital goods were removed from the factory premises in January, 2008 - Central Govt. has exempted the interest accrued on the customs duty payable by an export oriented unit. We also find that provisions of Section 61 clearly exclude the liability to pay interest for a period of 5 years from the date of bonding - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2009 (9) TMI 853
... ...
... ... ..... , the goods may, without prejudice to any other action which may be taken under this Act, be re-assessed to duty rdquo . In view of the aforesaid provision, the proper officer has to re-assess the goods, which were found in the examination and only thereafter the necessary order for clearance can be issued. The Appellant has produced evidence by way of letter dated 5-12-2008 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Group VA, New Custom House, Mumbai duly received on 16-12-2008 to show that the subject goods were relinquished by them before an order for clearance under Section 47 of the Customs Act was made. Therefore, the Appellant was not liable to pay duty. Since the Appellant has paid the duty, it is entitled to the refund of the duty paid. Hence, I hold that the impugned Order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not sustainable. The same is set aside and the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed with consequential relief as per law. (Pronounced in court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 842
Revocation of CHA licence - misconduct of employees - Case was booked against the importer for importing ozone depleting substances with intent to clear the same without filing proper declarations of the same at the rime of filing of the bill of entries - Held that: - there are no allegations and findings of the enquiry officer against the CHA as regards the violation of the provisions of CHALR. It is seen that the errors or commissions or omissions are committed by one Mr. Nageshwara Rao, clearing executive of the appellant but was not instructed by the appellant to do such an act.
The Commissioner of Customs can revoke the licence of the Custom House Agent and order for forfeiture of the security only if there is a failure on the part of custom house agent to comply with any of the provisions of the conditions of the bond, provisions of this regulations and any mis-conduct on his part - in the present case, there are no findings that the appellant had failed to comply with any of the regulations or has had engaged in misconduct on his part which renders him unfit to transact any business. In the absence of any such findings, it is held that the appellant is punishable with the revocation of the licences under the provisions of Regulation 19(8) of CHALR.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2009 (9) TMI 836
... ...
... ... ..... d the same calls for no reduction. 4. After hearing both sides, we find that the impugned goods have been misdeclared in respect of description, weight and value. The submission that the declaration was given as per the invoice and the goods sent by the foreign supplier did not conform to the purchase order is without much force as the appellants have not rejected the goods nor returned the same to the foreign supplier but have cleared the same after paying necessary customs duty, fine and penalty. Such cases of misdeclaration in regard to description, weight and value constitute serious offence under customs law. Yet, the adjudicating Commissioner has imposed fine and penalty which are on the lower side. Hence, the impugned order confiscating the impugned goods and enhancing the value has to be sustained. The redemption fine and penalty being on the lower side also do not require any reduction. Hence, the appeal is rejected. (Order pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 831
... ...
... ... ..... n of profit. However, in this case, I find that there is no calculation of the quantum of redemption fine in the order-in-original and according to the appellant, they have suffered a loss of Rs. 1,78,813/- excluding the redemption fine and penalty and if the redemption fine and penalty are maintained their losses would increase. On the other hand I find that since this is a case of import of goods in contravention of the provisions of EXIM policy, this is not a case for total waiver of fine and penalty, even if the imposition of the same results in loss to the Appellant. Having regard to the circumstances of the case and the fact that the appellant have paid duty on the enhanced value, I am of the view that the ends of the justice would be met if the redemption fine is reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) and the quantum of penalty is reduced to Rs. 20,000/- (Rupees Twenty Thousand). The impugned order stands modified, as above. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
|
