|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 99 Records
-
2009 (9) TMI 828
Interest on delayed refund of dumping duty - Held that:- The assessing authority had thus rightly granted 9% interest.
In any event the appeal and the revisional application of the Department have been rejected. Even though the Department has appealed to the Tribunal there is no order of stay. The respondent-authorities cannot indefinitely withhold interest, merely by filing an appeal, and more so when there is no interim stay. The respondent-authorities are bound to pay interest in terms of the order dated 11th July, 2008. W.P. allowed.
-
2009 (9) TMI 827
... ...
... ... ..... e. This is confirmed by Shri Prem Ranjan, Shri Piyush Kumar and Shri Prabhat Kumar, learned Counsels in the open Court today. Therefore, we have no hesitation to dismiss the Revenue rsquo s application since the stay order is presently before Hon rsquo ble High Court of Delhi. Once the order is under subjudice, self discipline demands that we shall not touch the same but to carry out orders and directions of higher Court where the matter is under subjudice. Therefore, learned Commissioner rsquo s application being misconceived is dismissed. 6. The second prayer in the Misc. application of Revenue is to club the present appeal along with Appeal Case No. 659/08 filed by M/s. Prasad Enterprises. We allow clubbing subject to result of the Writ application. Both sides are at liberty to mention whenever decision from the Hon rsquo ble High Court comes up on the aforesaid writ application for appropriate order, if any, to be passed. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 825
... ...
... ... ..... able to establish lawful procurement thereof. The case of the Revenue is that these goods were not shown to have been lawfully acquired. The show-cause notice says that no documents were produced proving licit acquisition of the goods. Though these goods are not notified under Section 123 of the Act, we find that, where the Department alleges smuggling against the appellant, it is incumbent on the latter to counter the allegation and establish title to the goods. The appellant in this case has failed to discharge this normal burden which arises out of a show-cause notice. In this view of the matter, prima facie, we hold the goods to be liable to confiscation under Section 111 and the appellant to be liable to penalty under Section 112. The appellant shall therefore pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 4,00,000/- (Rupees four lakhs only) towards penalty under Section 129E of the Act. This amount shall be deposited within four weeks. Report compliance on 19-10-2009. (Dictated in Court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 822
... ...
... ... ..... ) E.L.T. 719 (Tri. - Kolkata) 2008 (10) S.T.R. 515 (Tri. - Kolkata) respectively, in which, after distinguishing the Supreme Court judgments in the case of Flock India Ltd. (supra) and Priya Blue Industries Ltd. (supra), it was held that the mistakes arising out of an omission or accidental slip by the Customs officer can be corrected under Section 154 of the Customs Act, 1962 without taking recourse to the appellate remedies provided in the Customs Act, 1962. 6. I have examined the portion. Prima facie, I find merit in the submissions made by the learned Advocate of the respondents. The clerical/accidental slip or omission of the nature indicated in the instant case can be corrected at any time and the question of filing any appeal against the assessment order by the respondents does not arise. Prima facie, the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is sustainable. The stay petition filed by the Revenue does not have any force. The same is rejected. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 817
... ...
... ... ..... s Tariff Act, 1975 and Rule 21(1) of the Anti-dumping Rules. 2. emsp The learned DR reiterates the finding of the adjudicating authority and submits that differential duty is payable as definitive anti-dumping duty is higher than the provisional anti-dumping duty. 3. emsp We have carefully considered the submissions made by both sides. On perusal of Rule 21(1) of the Anti-dumping Rules, we find that if any higher definitive anti-dumping duty is imposed by the authority than the provisional anti-dumping duty, already imposed and collected, the differential duty for the period shall not be collected from the importer. As such, in view of the clear provisions, we find that the applicant has made out a prima facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of the amount involved in the matter. Accordingly, the condition for waiver of pre-deposit of the amounts involved in the matter is allowed and recovery thereof stayed till the disposal of the appeal. (Pronounced and dictated in the court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 815
... ...
... ... ..... ontention of Revenue is that the statement of Shri Basak is very clear that goods are for Bangladesh and he never retracted from the statement. Therefore the goods were confiscated on the ground that the same are to be smuggled to Bangladesh. 7. I find that in this case the goods were seized almost 50 (fifty) K.M. away from the Bangladesh border. The goods were confiscated and penalties were imposed on the ground that the impugned goods are attempted to be exported to Bangladesh. Shri Dipankar Roy claimed the goods as the same were locally purchased. Shri Basak from whose possession goods were seized disclosed the goods in question were purchased at the instance of Shri Dipankar Roy. There is no evidence on record that the movement of goods were towards Bangladesh border. The confiscation of the goods under Section 113B of Customs Act is not sustainable and hence set aside. Consequential penalty is also set aside. Appeal is allowed. (Pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 813
... ...
... ... ..... assed. 5. I find that in the present case the Revenue wants to confiscate the Indian currency on the ground that the same is sale proceeds of smuggled goods. I find that Tribunal in the case of Ramchandra (supra) relied upon by the respondent held that for violation of Section 121 of Customs Act, the ingredients must be satisfied. Section 121 of Customs Act provides as under ldquo Where any smuggled goods are sold by a person having know/edge or reason to believe that the goods are smuggled goods, the sale-proceeds thereof shall be liable to confiscation rdquo 6. I find that in the present case there is no evidence that there is sale of any smuggled goods, the sale is by a person having knowledge or reason to believe that the goods are being smuggled in nature and the seller and purchaser and quantity of smuggled goods is not established. In these circumstances I find no infirmity in the impugned order and the appeals are dismissed. (Pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 812
... ...
... ... ..... ained it as an appeal. We deprecate this practice, which is illegal and unjudicial. 4. The present appeal is allowed on the above ground. The stay application also gets disposed of. However, before parting with this matter, we may make mention of a crucial fact stated in the stay application, which is that the substantive issue is of recurring nature. The issue is whether the respondent is entitled to exemption from payment of CVD on the goods imported by them under the DFIAs. It appears, there is already an endorsement on each DFIA to the effect that the importer is required to pay additional duty of Customs on the imported goods. Since the issue is of recurring nature, it is necessary that, in the interest of justice, the original authority should promptly act upon the party rsquo s request for deletion of such endorsement. We trust, the Assistant Commissioner of Customs at Nhava Sheva will rise to the occasion and do the needful for the ends of justice. (Dictated in Court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 811
... ...
... ... ..... to verify the quantity of the cargo on the dates that they have given the lsquo let export rsquo order. As such, the dates of lsquo let export rsquo order, in these circumstances, cannot be given any sanctity as has been done by the lower appellate authority. In view of the fact that the quantity mentioned in the ARE-I and the quantities exported do not show any difference and in view of the fact that the ARE-1 are dated all prior to the dates of physical export, we overrule the objection raised by the ld. JCDR and allow the appeals by modifying the order of the lower appellate authority and directing the original authority to carry out the necessary amendments in the relevant shipping bills to reflect the ARE- 1 form details as the goods transported under the ARE-1 have been exported subsequently and especially in view of the fact that the exports have been duly certified. 6. All the three appeals are allowed in the above terms. (Order dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 809
... ...
... ... ..... ons possessing small quantities of silver bullion of Indian origin, it has been decided that normally the provisions of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 should not be invoked against persons who are found to be in possession of silver bullion of less than 100 Kgs. However, if the silver bullion is found to be in the form of bars weighing 30 Kgs. (approximately) each which are being smuggled into the country and also where silver bullion is found to bear foreign markings, the question of seizure may be considered even when the quantity is less than 100 Kgs. by an Officer not lower in rank than that of an Assistant Collector of Customs. 7. Further, I find that Tribunal in the case of Ganesh Prasad (supra) after relying upon the above mentioned Circular set aside the confiscation of silver in similar situation. In view of the above decision and Board Circular, I find no infirmity in the impugned order and the appeals are dismissed. (Pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 808
... ...
... ... ..... 99209. The adjudicating authority held that there was misdeclaration of value and, therefore, confiscated the goods with an option to redeem them on payment of a fine of Rs. 24,000/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- on the CHA. Hence this appeal. 2. emsp I have heard both sides. The Commissioner has accepted that due to inadvertent mistake, the second invoice was not included in the bill of entry. In these circumstances, it cannot be said that there was misdeclaration of value for the reason that the value of the goods covered by the invoice included in the bill of entry initially was not found to be incorrect. Therefore, I agree with learned counsel for the appellants that this is not a case where the provisions of Section 111(m) have been violated so as to warrant confiscation and penalty. I, therefore, set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief due to the appellants in accordance with law. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 806
... ...
... ... ..... for extension of the period. In other words, it appears, they were acting with impunity, regardless of the mandatory provisions of the above Notification. In this scenario, we are constrained to direct reasonable pre-deposit towards penalty. In this context, we note that the maximum penalty imposable under Section 117 of the Customs Act (one of the provisions invoked in the show-cause notice) was Rs. 1 lakh as on the date on which the impugned order was passed. The amount of penalty imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act by the Commissioner is Rs. 5 lakhs. In the peculiar circumstances of this case, we direct the appellant to pre-deposit an amount of Rs. 1 lakh under Section 129E of the Act, within a period of four weeks and report compliance on 13-10-2009. In the event of due compliance, there will be waiver of pre-deposit of the balance amount of penalty and stay of recovery of such amount of penalty as well as the amount of fine. (Dictated in Court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 804
... ...
... ... ..... liable for confiscation. 3. In the show-cause notice, it is admitted by the Customs Officials that this quantity is returned by the customer being defected and the present respondent issued a credit note in this regard. The contention is that in view of the findings, the confiscation is not sustainable. 4. I find that in this case, the present respondent made for import of knitted cotton fabrics and the same were cleared on payment of appropriate duty. The respondent is a trader. If the respondent is not maintaining an appropriate account for the sale of the goods, it cannot be said that the excess quantity found in the godown is smuggled into India. Further, the respondent produced the evidences to show that the excess goods were returned by the customer and the respondent issued credit note. This fact was noticed in the show-cause notice. In the circumstances, I find no infirmity in the impugned order and the appeal is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 802
... ...
... ... ..... law. Within 10 days from today, the appellant shall appear before him and make necessary proposal as that has been made by him as above, before him and subject to satisfaction of identification of goods as well as satisfaction of other conditions of order dated 19-8-09, the goods may be released. 6. We make it clear that the order passed today is only an interim measure without any expression of opinion. Also, that this order should not be cited by any side as precedent since peculiar circumstances of the case have been taken into account while passing this order. So also we make it clear that maintainability of appeal is still in question for argument by both sides. Once we are able to find that the litigation is maintainable for redressal before this forum, we may hear the appeal. 7. With the aforesaid observation, we have passed the order without appeal being admitted today and Misc. Application is disposed of accordingly. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 796
... ...
... ... ..... cies, if the Appeals are not disposed, the Tribunal shall extend the relief granted by interim order on goods cause and only if the Tribunal is satisfied that the matter could not be heard and disposed by reason of the process of the Tribunal and for reasons not attributable to the assessee, the stay granted earlier may be extended. 3. Heard both sides for some time. This is a case where we noticed that earlier stay order passed on 8-9-08 has not intended the stay to operate till disposal of Appeal. But a peculiar circumstance has comes to notice today sharing that the matter is not able to reach for hearing. We also noticed that the Appellant has cooperated to comply with the stay order passed as above. Therefore for no fault of the Appellant, the Appellant should not suffer when the term of the stay order has already been expired. Therefore this is a fit case where we extend operation of the order dated 8-9-08 till disposal of Appeal. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 794
... ...
... ... ..... und Rs. 35,000/-. 4. After taking into account the submissions made by both sides and keeping in view the fact that a petty penalty amount is involved, we waive the requirement of predeposit of the penalty amount and take up the appeal itself for decision on merit. We find that the proviso to Section 23(2) has been added only with effect from 18-4-2006 whereas the present case relates to 13-6-05 when the impugned Bill of Entry was filed. With regard to the point made by the ld. JCDR, sub-section (2) of Section 23 only grants remission from the duties. But the appellants are liable for penalty for the offence of misdeclaration as to the description and quantity. However, taking into account the facts and circumstances of the case and the amount of differential duty involved, we reduce the penalty from Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees fifteen thousand). The appeal is otherwise rejected except for reduction in the penalty amount. (Order dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 793
... ...
... ... ..... old and Silver Pvt. Ltd. The records of M/s. Jalan Gold and Silver Pvt. Ltd. were looked into by the investigating agency and it was found that on 26-12-2007 also the invoices were issued regarding sale of gold. In these circumstances the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the present Respondent had discharged the burden of proof. Under Section 123 of Customs Act regarding legal possession of the gold. In the grounds of Appeal the Revenue specifically stated that circumstantial evidence show that the invoice dated 24-12-2007 produced by the present Respondent might be prepared after the seizure as the finding of fact in respect of the invoice produced by the Appellant is not under challenge and there is no evidence on record to contradict this finding and in the Appeal memo it is mentioned that the invoice might be prepared after the seizure. In these circumstances I find no infirmity in the impugned order and the Appeal is dismissed. (Pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 792
... ...
... ... ..... hat the same were purchased from Delhi and also gave an undertaking to produce documents regarding purchase of the same. Till today, the present Respondent failed to produce any document regarding purchase of the impugned goods. The Respondent not even disclosed the name of the shop from where the same were purchased at Delhi. In view of the decision of the Tribunal relied upon by the Revenue, I find that a legitimate inference can safely be drawn that the goods had not been in fact legally imported into India. Hence, the impugned Order is set aside and the Order confiscating the impugned goods and imposing penalty on the present Respondent, passed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs, is restored. However, I find that as goods are not prohibited goods have an option to redeem the goods on payment of Redemption Fine of Rs. 1.00 lakh (Rupees one lakh) is given to the present Respondent. The Appeal is allowed, as indicated above. (Pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 790
Maintainability of appeal - valuation - time limitation - Held that: - the date of assessment order on bill of entry should not be adopted as the date of the order is not acceptable, as the present appeal has been filed by treating the assessment on the bill of entry as the assessment order and since the assessment on the bill of entry had been completed on 5-12-08, the limitation period would be counted from this date. In any case, even if the date of out of charge is treated as the date of assessment order, even then the appeal has been filed beyond the period of ninety days and thus there is more than 30 day’s delay in filing of appeal, which cannot be condoned - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2009 (9) TMI 787
... ...
... ... ..... e of Korean origin and invoice also produced to the same effect. The bill of entry was filed through CHA with all the documents showing country of origin of goods as Korea. No investigation was conducted from CHA and CHA is not a party to the present proceedings. There is no evidence on record that present respondent has manipulated the documents supplied by the principal. Hence the impugned order is rightly passed. 6. In this case the only bill of lading which is received from foreign shipping liner by the respondent and the same was supplied to the importer. There is no evidence on record that respondent in any way manipulated the documents in question or carried with importer to evade duty. Bill of entry filed by importer alongwith certificate of origin and invoice were also showing the country of origin of goods in question as Koria. In these circumstances, I find no infirmity in the impugned order hence the appeal is dismissed. (Pronounced and dictated in the open Court)
|
