|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 99 Records
-
2009 (9) TMI 667
Writ Petition – condontion of delay of 601 days - petitioner seeking condonation of delay that the petitioner shifted their office and that the original order of the Appellate Commissioner was received at the old place of office and misplaced – Held that:- application of the petitioner to condone the delay is allowed
-
2009 (9) TMI 606
Duty liability – relinquishment of title of the imported goods - Company relinquish title without demur - auction was held and the goods were purchased back from the auction purchaser by the petitioner - goods have not only lost its character as ‘imported goods’ but the petitioner-Company had also lost their character as an ‘importer’ in respect of these imported goods - auction purchaser is son-in-law of the petitioner and the petitioner-Company had purchased it from him would pale into insignificance - Customs Department has allowed the auction of warehoused goods after deducting the warehouse charges and duty etc. then the goods have come in the hands of auction purchaser in accordance with law - Company, not exigible to Custom Duty as the goods had been auctioned after obtaining permission from the proper officer
-
2009 (9) TMI 604
Second testing of sample - sample failed in two parameters - petitioner made representations for second testing of sample - sample retained by the Customs Department is forwarded to other Centres - testing is found to be favourable to the Petitioner - question would still have to be answered by the Authority concerned whether the first Report should be ignored or discounted - petition is accordingly disposed of
-
2009 (9) TMI 599
EOU - failed to fulfill export obligation in the period allowed - directed the appellant to pay all the duties of customs and central excise - EOU was not entitled to depreciation for computing duty to be recovered on capital goods imported; it was liable pay the duty foregone at the time of procurement - Commissioner has passed the order without meeting the challenge set up by the EOU to the proposals – Held that: - There has to be judicial justification of such a view. Unless the decision is squarely covered by a binding ratio, an order cannot be validly passed ignoring the arguments of the noticee. We observe that the Commissioner passed a non-speaking order without considering the arguments of the assesses - order cannot therefore be sustained.
-
2009 (9) TMI 593
Penalty - documents produced by the driver of the truck pertaining to the goods were forged - No material was brought on record – Held that: - When the documents seized from the driver of the truck found forged then no reason to interfere with the impugned order of the Tribunal which is hereby sustained.
-
2009 (9) TMI 567
Assessment - Provisional Assessment - by the impugned order the petitioners have been called upon to deposit 50% of the differential value i.e. Rs. 1,25,21,129/- which is contrary to the Regulation 2 under which at the time of passing of the order of provisional assessment the assessee can be asked to deposit only 20% amount assessed. Writ petition filed by the petitioner by submitting that no appeal maintainable before Tribunal against provisional assessment as held by Tribunal in case of Shanti Alloys Pvt. Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore. Held that - appeal maintainable under section 129A of Custom Act, 1962 against order of Commissioner for provisional assessment. Petitioner entitled to urge all grounds including breach of regulation 2. Not a fit case to exercise extra jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of constitution of India.
-
2009 (9) TMI 555
Suspension of- The power of the Commissioner of Customs to suspend a Customs House Agent’s Licence has been questioned. Requisition of regulation 22 of Custom House Agents Licensing Regulation, 2004 need not be complied with in cases requiring immediate suspension. Held that- consignment cleared by employee and not known how unauthorized person allowed to clear goods. Contravention alleged, prima facie not warranting immediate suspension without hearing. Suspension of licence stayed.
-
2009 (9) TMI 519
Abetment on DEPB fraud – testing laboratory – penalty – Held that: - appellant is a testing laboratory and their job is only to analyse the samples and accordingly to prepare a test report and the appellant has nowhere any role in misdeclaration or undervaluation of the impugned goods In fact the appellant has given the vague report as it was not up to the mark as prescribed by the literature and on the basis of that vague test report, the department was able to find that the impugned goods are misdeclared of the quantity and the value. – in the absence of conscious knowledge, penalty on charge of aiding and abetting would not sustained. – Penalty set aside
-
2009 (9) TMI 512
Confiscation and penalty- The respondents who were holders of a passbook under the DEEC Scheme, had imported as many as 16 consignments. The Assessing Officer then arrived at the conclusion that the import of 16 consignments was not only in contravention of law but also as a result of conspiracy. The impugned three consignments had also been sold before they were imported into the country in violation of para 281 of the Import Export Policy 1988-91. Therefore the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. while the Tribunal set aside the order of confiscation and penalty. Held that- the respondents had not cleared the goods. The Bill of Entry was filed by some other person. Therefore, the question of breach of condition by the respondents would not arise. What Section 111(o) of the Act reiterates is “the condition is not observed”. The stage for observing the condition had not yet arisen as the goods themselves had not been cleared by the respondents. In our opinion, therefore, the learned Tribunal was right in placing reliance on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Union of India v. Sampat Raj Dugar, 1992 (58) E.L.T. 163 (S.C.). The learned counsel is unable to point out any other provision under which the goods could be confiscated or penalty imposed insofar as the respondent no. 1 is concerned. Considering the above, in our opinion, the questions as framed in respect of the reference sought by the Revenue would not arise. Consequently, the application is rejected.
-
2009 (9) TMI 500
Valuation- The loading was completed on 10-3-2007. In the meanwhile, export duty of Rs.300/- PMT on Iron Ore was imposed w.e.f. 1-3-2007 and on insistence by the Customs Department, the exporter paid the duty under protest on 9-3-2007. Thereafter, the exporter filed a refund claim with the department claiming refund of the export duty paid by them on the ground that the date for determination of rate of duty and tariff valuation of export goods is the date on which the proper officer makes the order permitting clearance and loading of the goods for exportation under Section 51 and in this case, the order “passed for shipment” was passed on 28-2-2007 itself by the proper officer. The refund claim was rejected after issue of show-cause notice by the original adjudicating authority but allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) on an appeal filed by the exporter. Revenue is in appeal against this order of the Commissioner (Appeals) allowing the refund claim to the exporter.
Held that- we direct that the appropriate authority shall re-assess the goods under Section 17 of the Customs Act, 1962 treating the relevant date for determination of export duty as 1-3-2007. Needless to say the refund claim filed by the exporter would also be reconsidered after assessment and decision taken by the appropriate authority. For this purpose, the impugned order-in-appeal is set aside and the matter remanded to original adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after giving opportunity to the exporter, to present their case.
-
2009 (9) TMI 498
Confiscation and penalty- Moisture content not conforming to standards under Prevention of Food Adulteration Act. Consignment analyzed by Senior Public Analyst, State Food Laboratory and only parameter which was specifically considered is regarding moisture content. Moisture content of imported goods is 10.20% while standard indicates that moisture content should not be more than 5%. Product being dry powder, moisture could be removed from the product by process of heating. Confiscation and penalty set aside and authorities directed to clear goods for reprocessing.
-
2009 (9) TMI 476
Jurisdiction of customs - The petitioner is engaged in the manufacture of pharmaceutical products. A show cause notice has been issued. The allegations in the show cause notice are also that the petitioner had fraudulently obtained DEPE licences/scrips from the DGFT by submitting Bank realization certificates, issued by the bankers, as proof of receipt of sale proceeds in the form of foreign remittances, even though the remittances were arranged by unconnected parties into the petitioner’s account. Section 111 of the Customs Act relates to confiscation of improperly imported goods and, under clause (d) thereof, any goods which are imported contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under the Act, or any other law for the time being in force, shall be liable for confiscation. Section 112 relates to penalty for improper importation of goods.
Held that- The writ petitions fail and are, accordingly, dismissed. However, in the circumstances, without costs. After pronouncement of judgment Sri K.V.Satyanarayana Learned Counsel for the petitioner, seeks our leave to prefer an appeal to the Supreme Court. As no substantial question of law, either on the interpretation of the Constitution or of general importance, which needs to be decided by the Supreme Court arises for consideration in these writ petitions, we see no reason to grant leave as sought for. Oral application for leave is rejected.
-
2009 (9) TMI 472
Jurisdiction- Same SCN assigned for adjudication to 2 Commissioners. Vide order dated 02.08.2005 Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication) Mumbai appointed to adjudicate show cause Notice dated 29.11.2004 and for the same purpose, under Notification No. 112/05-cus. (NT), dated 28.12.2005, Commissioner of Custom (Import) Nhava Sheva also appointed. Former Commissioner passed Order-in-Original on 31.12.2007 while latter passed order-in-original dated 18.03.2008. Assignment to adjudicate dated 28.12.2005 impliedly superseded the earlier assignment dated 02.08.2005. In other words, Commissioner of Custom (Adj.) Mumbai had no jurisdiction to adjudicate the show cause notice on or after 28.12.2005. Board’s Notification and Orders should be deemed to be within the knowledge of departmental officer including the two Commissioners. Jurisdiction to adjudicate conferred on Commissioner of Custom (Import) Nhava Sheva by the Board and this jurisdiction stay with him. Order dated 31.12.2007 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Adj.) Mumbai is without jurisdiction and the same is set aside. Appeal allowed on the short ground of jurisdictional infirmity.
-
2009 (9) TMI 470
Smuggling- Appellant filed this Appeal against the impugned order whereby 526 tins each containing 14 Kgs. of palm oil were confiscated on the ground that the same were smuggled into India and personal penalty of Rs. 50,000/-(Rupees Fifty Thousand only) was imposed on the Appellant. Held that- palm oil is not notified goods under Section 123 of Customs Act. Hence burden of proof is on Revenue to show that the same is smuggled into India and the goods are also not prohibited goods. Further I find that the Appellant claimed that the goods in question were purchased from M/s. Sree Narayan Oil Store is not in dispute as the payments were made through bank drafts. In these circumstances I find merit in the contention of the Appellant. The impugned order is set aside and Appeal is allowed. Appellant is entitled for consequential relief, if any, in accordance with law.
-
2009 (9) TMI 464
Port dues- Suit for recovery of pre-confiscation charges. Second defendant as agent of vessel liable as per section 2(o) of Major Port Trust Act, 1963. Burden of proof that second defendant was vessel agent discharged by plaintiff and evidence. Failure to disclose nature of contract leading to drawal of adverse inference against second defendant. Vessel agent not liable once property in goods has passed upon endorsement of bill of lading or issuance of delivery order. Consignee being fictitious entity as noted in order confiscation, passing of property in goods not arises. Second defendant as bailors of consignment, liable for port charges for period prior to confiscation by customs.
-
2009 (9) TMI 451
EXIM- Import of second hand goods- This appeal is preferred by the Revenue. The facts of the case are that the respondent, had imported secondhand Video Games and filed a Bill of Entry claiming that the goods are capital goods, which are freely importable as per Para 2.17 of the Exim Policy 2004-2009. The original adjudicating authority agreeing that those secondhand capital goods by referring to Paras 9.12, 9.52, 9.53 of the Chapter 9 of the Exim Policy 2004-2009 and held that though were imported against which no foreign exchange earning was there. Therefore, the goods were confiscated and in violation of Para 2.17 of the Exim Policy and redemption fine and penalty were imposed. Aggrieved from the same, the respondents preferred an appeal before the Commissioner of Customs, who allowed the appeal holding that the goods are secondhand goods, which do not require any import licence and fine and penalty imposed on the respondents were dropped. Against the said order, the Revenue is in appeal before us. Held that- the impugned goods can be imported as capital goods under Para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-2009 without licence under Para 2.33 of the Handbook of Procedures 2002-07 and the DGFT Circular No. 16 dated 29-9-2003. Further, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, the same is upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.
-
2009 (9) TMI 449
Suspension of CHA Licence- Suspension of CHA licence. Firm already closed for about 2 years. Submission that appeal relating to year 2002-2003 coming up for final hearing, therefore it will take year for appeal to come up in normal course and firm will remain closed for all that period if early hearing not granted. Tribunal not rendering final decision on quantum of punishment, only application for early hearing being considered. If quantum of punishment, only application for early hearing being considered. If quantum of punishment happens to be disproportionate to the gravity of offence committed, delay in hearing may not be justifiable. Early hearing allowed without going into merits.
-
2009 (9) TMI 440
Demurrage charges- Detention Certificate- The original authority has very clearly brought out the actual position that the detention was not at the instance of customs or for examination by customs authorities. The impugned goods remained in the custody of the port trust as desired by the respondents. Hence, it is clear that no detention certificate is required to be issued for waiver of demurrage and detention charges, as the respondents were fully responsible for detention of the cargo. Held that- The respondents were fully responsible for not producing the required bank guarantee for the clearance of the cargo and in fact they had requested for release of the part of the consignment and retention of the balance quantity. Hence, the original authority has rightly rejected their request for issue of a detention certificate required for seeking waiver of demurrage and detention charges from the port trust. In view of the foregoing, we set aside the impugned order-in-Appeal and restore the order of the original authority. The department’s appeal is allowed. The Cross-objection is dismissed.
-
2009 (9) TMI 426
Re-export-Confiscated goods- Foreign Exporter seeking re-export of such goods from India. Goods under import liable to confiscation on account of misdeclaration. Supreme Court in 2003(155) E.L.T. 417(S.C.) held in similar situation that re-export. Where goods imported are liable to confiscation, such goods cannot be allowed re-export and bona fide of exporter not relevant. Impugned order containing finding on collusion of appellant with importer in evading duty and several consignments fraudulently imported before. Held that- impugned order rejecting request for re-export sustainable.
-
2009 (9) TMI 425
Exemption- This appeal was filed by the department against an order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), whereby the respondent got the benefit of exemption from payment of CVD on goods imported under DFIA No. 0310386574 dated 23-6-2006 issued from the office of the Directorate-General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). The main contention raised by the department (appellant) is that the above endorsement is not a ‘decision’ or ‘order’ appealable under Section 128 of the Customs Act. held that- endorsement taken as not binding and customs to independently assess the goods. Commissioner (Appeals) ought to have not entertained appeal based on intradepartmental proceedings. Impugned order set aside.
|
