|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 99 Records
-
2009 (9) TMI 785
... ...
... ... ..... duty and tariff valuation of export goods. - The rate of duty and tariff valuation, if any, applicable to any export of goods, shall be the rate and valuation in force, - (a) in the case of goods entered for export under Section 50, on the date on which the proper officer makes an order permitting clearance and loading of the goods for exportation under section 51 (b) in the case of any other goods, on the date of payment of duty (2) the provisions of this section shall not apply to baggage and goods exported by post. rdquo There is no dispute that the let export order in the instant case had, been issued on 28-2-2007. On 28-2-2007, no export duty was leviable on iron ore. The levy was introduced with effect from 1-3-2007. Therefore, the impugned demand of duty is not in accordance with law. In the circumstances, we vacate both the orders of the lower authorities and allow this appeal. (Operative portion of the order has been pronounced in the court on conclusion of hearing)
-
2009 (9) TMI 780
... ...
... ... ..... ly with any provisions of the Act which he was duty bound to comply with are not made out in the show-cause notice or adjudication order. The penalty under Section 114AA, is also prima facie not sustainable as this section came into effect only from 13-7-2006 while the exports in the name of M/s. R.K. Tex Knit and M/s. G.R. and Company were made prior to that date (export in the name of R.K. Tex Unit took place in Nov rsquo 05 and export in the name of G.R. and Company took place in Jan rsquo 06). Yet another reason why the penalties are not prima facie sustainable is that consolidated penalty has been imposed under various provisions of the statute which is prima facie not legally permissible. 4. For the reasons set out above, I am of the view that applicants have made out a strong prima facie case for waiver and hence dispense with predeposit of the penalties and stay recovery thereof pending the appeal. (Operative part of the order pronounced in the open court on 8-9-2009)
-
2009 (9) TMI 775
... ...
... ... ..... both sides and perused the records. We find from the contents of the letter as reproduced herein above that O/O Commissioner of Customs, has classified the product under Chapter heading No. 1805 denying the benefit to the appellants, which is definitely detrimental to the rights and the privileges of the assessee to get the benefits, if are available under law. We find that this order though devoid of any reasoning, indicates having been issued with the approval of the Commissioner. We find that this is not a correct procedure that needs to be followed by the Commissioner. Without expressing any opinion on merits, we are of the view that the learned Commissioner should hear the appellants on the issue and pass a speaking order at the earliest but not later than 2 months from the date of receipt of this order. Appeal allowed by way of remand to the learned Commissioner with a direction to pass a speaking order as indicated herein above. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 774
... ...
... ... ..... he appellants is that the livestock was seized by the BSF Personnel from the cowsheds regarding which a complaint was lodged with the police. The appellants also filed proof of purchase of livestock by producing receipts. No investigation was conducted in this regard. Further, find the livestock was seized from 6 kms and 4 kms away from the Indo Bangladesh border as mentioned in the show-cause notices. In the case relied upon by the appellants, it has been held that late filing of claim of ownership or complaint will not affect the case of the assessee. In the circumstances, as there is no evidence on record to show that the livestock in question which was seized from 6 kms and 4 kms away from the Indo Bangladesh border, was for smuggling to Bangladesh. In the circumstances, I find merit in the contention of the appellants and the impugned orders are set aside and all the appeals are allowed. Stay petitions also stand disposed off. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 773
... ...
... ... ..... uld be sufficient for the lower authorities to clear the consignments. At the same time, we also note that the respondent has not produced essentiality certificate issued by the head of the hospital indicating that equipments which are required for the running and maintenance of the hospital. Considering the entire case, we find that the impugned order need not be stayed at this juncture, but the clearance of the consignments may be granted by the lower authorities subject to the condition that the respondent executes a bond covering the entire differential duty to be foregone by the Revenue. Stay petition is accordingly disposed off. 7. Since the live consignments are stuck up at the Air Cargo Complex, Hyderabad Airport, we direct the lower authorities to clear the consignments within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of this order, subject to execution of bond by the respondent. A copy of this order may be issued by Dasti. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 770
... ...
... ... ..... vision for in-built motor and that the absence of a motor would not make any material difference. The Commissioner (Appeals) extended the benefit of the notification hence this appeal by the Revenue. 2. We have heard the learned SDR and perused the records - none appears for the respondent in spite of notice. There is no dispute that the impugned goods have been imported without in-built motor although they contain a provision therefor. The relevant entry in the Table of the Notification No. 6/2002 covers sewing machines other than with in-built motor and it does not state that sewing machines other than those which have a provision for in-built motor whether or not fitted with motors when imported, are excluded. Going by the clear language of the notification the benefit is certainly available to the goods in question. We, therefore, uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. (Operative portion of the order was pronounced in the open court on completion of the hearing)
-
2009 (9) TMI 767
... ...
... ... ..... o the eye. They are accessories which are compulsorily supplied along with lens and no separate charge is made for such supply as the price is included in the price of the article. As per the Accessories (Condition) Rules, 1963, the cartridge will also be eligible for duty free assessment as available for the intraocular lens. Therefore, the Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly extended the benefit of the notification to the imported goods namely intraocular set. Accordingly, we uphold the impugned order and reject the appeal. (Operative portion of the order was pronounced in open court on completion of the hearing)
-
2009 (9) TMI 765
... ...
... ... ..... ey have also clearly stated that they accept that they were not entitied to further import of the same model. The vehicles admittedly not having been sold the question of the importers earning any profit does not arise. In the circumstances, I agree with the importers that some reduction in the fine is called for. I reduce the redemption fine from Rs. 3 lakhs to Rs. 1.50 lakhs (Rupees One Lakh Fifty Thousand only). As regards penalty, no ground for interference is called for as the amount of penalty is only Rs. 1 lakh. The appeal is thus allowed by way of reduction in fine. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 759
Suspension of CHA licence - the exporter was found to be non-existent in respect of three shipping bills filed by them - Held that: - the decisions of Hon’ble Bombay High Court, under whose jurisdiction this Tribunal is functioning, is relevant and in the case of CC v. National Shipping Agency [2008 (1) TMI 400 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY], the Hon’ble High Court held that the issue of suspension order on 30-10-2006 for violation committed in the year 2005 indicates that there is no emergency which required licence to be suspended - The facts in this case are similar to the facts considered by the Hon’ble High Court - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2009 (9) TMI 758
... ...
... ... ..... ppellants, were not given to them. Further, he also submits that the price determined in the Bill of Entry was enhanced price and it is not the transaction value. 3. We have considered the submissions made by both the sides. We find that by not giving copies of Bills of Entry principles of natural justice have not been observed by the lower authorities and, therefore, without going into the merits of the orders passed by the lower authorities we consider it appropriate that the matter requires to be remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals), who shall furnish copies of Bill of Entry along with the invoices to the appellants and hear them afresh and decide the matter. In view of the fact that the goods are still under the control of customs and have not been cleared, we direct that the process of hearing and passing of the order afresh should be completed within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. 4. Appeal allowed by way of remand. (Dictated in court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 756
... ...
... ... ..... as primarily prayed for imposition of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of the vehicle. This prayer, of course, is prejudicial to the present applicant. We also note that, in order No. S/75-76/09 dated 19-2-2009, this Bench noted that there was no reason to interfere in the Commissioner rsquo s order at that stage. It further observed that, as the issue of re-export of the car was live, the appeals should be disposed of out-of-turn. In view of these facts and circumstances, we allow this application, for the ends of justice, and direct that the applicant be impleaded as additional respondent in the department rsquo s appeal No. C/1205/08. Having regard to the observations made by the Bench in order dated 19-2-2009, we direct both the appeals to be posted to 27-10-2009 for final hearing. The additional respondent is directed to apply for, and obtain, certified copies of the interim orders so far passed by the Bench in the department rsquo s appeal. (Pronounced in Court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 754
... ...
... ... ..... Ltd. and others v. Commissioner of Customs (Adjn), Mumbai 2009-TIOL-187-CESTAT-MUM. We have examined the case law and have found no merits in the submission. We are, therefore, of the view that Shri Manoj Omprakash Goel has failed to make out a prima facie case against the penalty imposed on him and, therefore, he should make a pre-deposit under Section 129 of the Customs Act. 15. We have not come across any plea of financial hardships in this case. 16. We, therefore, direct the appellants to make pre-deposit as below (a) Shri Kamal Agarwal (CHA) Rs. 2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) (b) Shri Mahesh P. Patel - Rs. 10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten lakhs only) (c) Shri Manoj Omprakash Goel - Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees Five lakhs only). 17. These deposits shall be made within four weeks. Report compliance on 9-10-09. In the event of due compliance, there shall be waiver of pre-deposit and stay of recovery in respect of the balance amount of the penalties. (Dictated and pronounced in Court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 751
Jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) - power to remand - valuation dispute - Held that: - The Commissioner (Appeals) has no power to remand the matter after the Finance Act, 2001 came into force - It is not in dispute that the new evidence seen by the appellate authority was not available to the original authority. Therefore, the case requires to be examined afresh by the original authority - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2009 (9) TMI 719
... ...
... ... ..... does not deserve any consideration for preferring a belated appeal which otherwise is abuse of process of law. The appellant has also not explained in the application whether the delay was bona fide and not deliberate. While considering the matter, we were not at all concerned with the length of delay but were concerned with cause of delay which does not appear to us to be convincible and delay condonable. This we say following the decision of Apex Court in the case of N. Balakrishnan v. M. Krishnamurthy reported in 2008 (228) E.L.T. 162 (S.C.). 3. For the aforesaid reason, justice does not warrant to permit abuse of process of law, through the Misc. Applications for condonation of delay. Accordingly, both the delay condonation applications, stay applications and Appeals in both the cases are dismissed. 4. In view of the aforesaid order, the other two Misc. Applications registered as Nos. 705-706/2009 have become infructuous. (Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 707
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Anti-dumping duty - Provisional assessment - prospective or retrospective application of rate of duty?
-
2009 (9) TMI 706
Stay/Dispensation of pre-deposit - Advance Licence scheme ... ... ... ... ..... the exemption or restricting or whittling it down, cannot be imposed. 8. emsp We also note that the Hon rsquo ble Supreme Court in the case of CCE, Bolpur v. Ratan Melting and Wire Industries 2008 (231) E.L.T. 22 (S.C.) 2008 (12) S.T.R. 416 (S.C.) has held that a Circular contrary to the statutory provisions has no existence law. The Supreme Court held so after discussing and clarifying their earlier judgments in the case of Dhiren Chemical Industries reported in 2002 (139) E.L.T. 3 (S.C.) and 2002 (143) E.L.T. 19 (S.C.) in which it was held that the C.B.E. and C Circulars are binding on the Revenue even if these are placing different interpretation than that given by the Supreme Court. 9. emsp Prima facie, the applicants have made out a strong case for the complete waiver of the pre-deposit of the duty demanded. Accordingly, we dispense with the pre-deposit of duty of Rs. 71,52,499/- and stay recovery thereof pending disposal of the appeal. (Pronounced in Court on 7-9-2009)
-
2009 (9) TMI 699
Refund - Unjust enrichment ... ... ... ... ..... refully considered the submissions from both sides. In the given facts and circumstances of the case, I accept the contention that the appellant was in the process of finalizing their annual accounts and they were prevented by sufficient cause from producing the evidence which they were called upon to produce by the original authority. Therefore, in the interest of justice, I set aside the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and also order of the original authority and remand the matter to the original authority to consider the issues afresh after taking into account the evidence now sought to be relied upon by the appellant. The appellant is permitted to produce the relied upon evidence within one month from the date of receipt of this order. Thereafter, the original authority will decide eligibility of the refund claim after giving reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellants. 7. emsp The appeal is allowed by way of remand. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 698
Refund - Confiscation of goods – non-resident Indian imported used household articles under the Transfer of Residence Rules - redemption fine of Rs. 1,40,000/- in lieu of confiscation. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 60,000/- on the petitioner - petitioner remitted the said sum of Rs. 2,00,000 – Held that:- Petitioner’s liability to pay redemption fine and penalty stands limited to the sum of Rs. 1,00,000 - petitioner is entitled to refund of the excess sum of Rs. 1,00,000/- paid by him as redemption fine and penalty
-
2009 (9) TMI 681
Valuation - Enhancement of declared value ... ... ... ... ..... of another Bill of Entry, it is seen that the description is totally distinct and the size of the item is totally different. It is for the Revenue to establish that the imported goods are comparable with other goods in all aspects of the matter. No such evidence has been produced. The appellants rsquo goods are ldquo Prepainted Coils/Sheets (galvanized base) rdquo while the Bill of Entry taken for comparison describes the goods as ldquo Galvannealed Steel Sheets in Coil rdquo with different dimensions. The appellants rsquo contention is that these goods are of prime quality while their goods are not so. In view of the description being different and Revenue having failed to establish that both the items are identical, therefore, the enhancement of value is not justified in terms of Section 14 of the Customs Act. The impugned order is not legal and proper and the same is set aside by allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2009 (9) TMI 668
Whether the Tribunal is correct in setting aside the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the second respondent who violated the provision of Section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 by misdeclaring the imported goods – Held that:- contention of the counsel for the petitioner that whether the imported goods is a dried garlic or a fresh garlic containing moisture over and above 60 per cent is a pure and simple question of fact and hence it would not come under the purview of reference under Section 130-A of the Customs Act. The other contention made by the learned counsel that the second respondent has misdeclared the goods and its value for clearance of the goods which is liable to auction under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act is also one specifically excluded from the scope and amplitude of Section 130-A of the Customs Act by stating that the order not being order relating to among other things to the determination of any question having relating to a rate of duty of customs or to the value of goods for the purpose of assessment, applicant cannot maintain reference case under Section 130-A of the Customs Act, petitions are dismissed
|
