Home Case Index All Cases Customs 2010 2010 2010 (7) Customs - 2010 (7) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Customs - Case Laws

Showing 41 to 60 of 70 Records

• 2010 (7) TMI 415
  

  Confiscation and penalty – Misdeclaration – Overvaluation to claim higher DEPB rates – In the case of Mercantile India (2007 -TMI - 1619 - CESTAT,CHENNAI), it was found that the quantity and value of export goods were misdeclared with intent to avail DEPB credit and accordingly confiscation was upheld - appellant's case is worse inasmuch as they consistently confessed to having overvalued the goods for claiming undue DEPB benefit and even produced documentary evidence of Present Market Value - Tribunal taken the contrary view to the applicability of Sections 113(d) and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 in the case of export under DEPB scheme by the exporter - matter referred to the larger Bench to decide the issue "whether the provisions of Sections 113(d) and 114 of the Customs Act, 1962 are invocable in the case of export under DEPB schemes or not?"

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 409
  

  Valuation - difference in quantity of the goods imported by the Appellant and imported by the same supplier - No investigation has been conducted at the Appellant's end and nothing incriminating has been recovered from the Appellant's premises – Held that: - enhancement of value of goods imported from other suppliers on the basis of invoices of one supplier is not sustainable - demand, redemption fine and penalty on the present Appeal are set aside - Appeal is allowed

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 391
  

  Confiscation - absence of any prescription of the degree/percentage of tanning in the definition of "finished leather", the goods cannot be held to be other than finished leather – penalty set aside

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 390
  

  Appeal – cancellation of CHA licence of partnership firm due to change in constitution - DR took an objection that the Tribunal has no jurisdiction to entertain this appeal – Held that: - As per Section 129, the Tribunal has the power to entertain the appeal against a decision or order passed by the adjudicating authority under the Act - Commissioner (adjudicating authority) has passed an order which is appealable

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 378
  

  Penalty – separate penalty on partner when also imposed on partnership firm - no such corresponding provision in relation to imposition of penalties under the Act - Tribunal was justified in holding that no separate penalties were warranted on the partners in addition to the penalty on the partnership firm – no separate penalty

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 375
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit – confiscation and penalty - importer did not produce certificate of Central Pollution Control Board (CPCB) for importation of the goods - test report states that the material was non-toxic and non-hazardous - Commissioner's order, agreed with findings of the scientific agency - confiscation ordered by the Commissioner on the ground of CPCB certificate having not been produced by the importer is prima facie, unsustainable – Pre-deposit waived

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 372
  

  Refund – Limitation – Re-export of re-imported goods – appellant submitted that since the duty paid was equal to excise duty, the limitation of 6 months under the Customs Act, 1962 should not be applied but the time-limit of one year for refund provided under the Excise Law should be applied - appellants is not acceptable as the duty which was collected was the customs duty, the amount was only determined equal to the excise duty, but the nature of duty remained the customs duty - refund of such customs duty paid by the appellants, the provisions of Customs Law is applicable and not that of Central Excise Law - refund claim was hit by time bar

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 365
  

  Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) – Appealable order – Advance licence – Export obligation completed - appellant had taken 12 Advance licences against which they imported duty free machinery and machinery parts - 12 Advance Licences, they have completed Export Obligation and have received Export Obligation Discharge Certificate (EODC) - letter dated 16-6-2009 is shutting away the appellant's claim of EODC and casts a liability, it would be correct in law to hold that the letter dated 16-6-2009 can be considered as an Order, and appeal has been filed within time against this letter before the learned Commissioner (Appeals) - set aside the impugned order and remand the matter back to the learned Commissioner (Appeals) to re-consider the issue as an appeal and pass a speaking order – Appeal allowed

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 358
  

  Adjudication order – Author not known – Order not bearing name of person passing such order - order cannot be taken to be a valid order in the eyes of law which does not bear the name of the person who has purportedly passed the same - appellants at liberty to produce such documents before the Adjudicating Authority, allow assessee adequate opportunity of hearing before passing a fresh order - appeal allowed by way of remand

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 353
  

  Car import – transfer of residence – Post import conditions - car was confiscated at the time of its import for violation of Condition enumerated in serial (a) of Clause of Condition No. 3 that the importer was not having the possession of the car for one year abroad before coming to India - condition of post import that the vehicle shall not be sold for two years not applicable on the importer - penalties are imposed it means that the respondents are not availing of the TR concessions which enable them to import the car without obtaining licence - conditions of "No Sale' need not insisted upon

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 349
  

  Appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) – Limitation – Condonation of delay of 60 days - statutory period to file the appeal as per Section 128(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 expires on 10-8-2008, which was Sunday - Section 10 deals with the situation where the last date of filing the appeal is being Sunday then the next working day shall be the last date of filing the appeal - last date of filing of the appeal was 10-8-2008 being Sunday, the appeal would have to be filed by 11-8-2008. As the appeal has been filed on 10-9-2008 within 30 days of the last date of filing the appeal i.e. 11-8-2008, the delay is condonable by the Commissioner (Appeals) and it is within the extended period of 30 days - matter is remanded back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass the order on merit

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 346
  

  SCN – Extension of time limit for issue - Commissioner failed to show that the seizure of Bank account required for investigation – Held that: - Commissioner failed to show the sufficient cause for seizure of the Bank account by extending another period of six months for issuance of the show-cause notice and the same is not justified

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 345
  

  Confiscation – Import without NOC from Pollution Control Board – Import of used/waste oil - no evidence that the used oil imported can be considered as waste oil - report of Punjab Test House where the testing was done as approved by CBEC, is not in favour of the Department - The report of CRCL is non-committal on this issue - clarification of Ministry of Environment and Forests is in the nature of general opinion without reference to specific samples - order of the Commissioner is set aside - appeal is allowed

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 328
  

  Classification of product – Bentonite - product imported is treated with acid - appellants had contested this decision on the ground that the decision was rendered in the context of domestic manufacture and not in the context of importation of the goods - Tribunal took a view that natural clay washed with acid is covered under CETH 3802 – Held that: - Bentonite when treated with acid is to be classified under CETH 3802 – Appeal is rejected

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 326
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit – penalty – non-fulfillment of export obligation – obligation fulfilled within extended period of time – Held that: - delay in not being able to produce the proof of such export obligation was on account of the delay with the customs authorities for which the petitioner cannot be blamed - Waiver of pre-deposit allowed

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 325
  

  Waiver of redemption fine - goods are not available, there is no question of redemption of the goods - order can only be passed if the goods are available, for redemption - Held that: - goods cannot be redeemed no fine can be imposed - fine is in the nature of compensation to the state for the wrong done by the importer/exporter - appeals are dismissed

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 307
  

  Demand under Foreign Travel Tax (FTT) - Competent jurisdiction against the order of Commissioner (appeals) under Rule 11 of the Inland Air Travel Tax Rules, 1989 - Held that: - above, against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, only revision is provided and that too, this revision lies to the Central Government. CESTAT does not come into the picture at all in these Rules. Therefore, it is a case of inherent lack of jurisdiction on the part of CESTAT to entertain such an appeal and such an order would clearly be null and void in the eyes of law as also has been seen in the aforementioned cases.

  Respondent was misled by none else but by the office of the Commissioner (Appeals) who misguided the respondent by stating that appeal under Section 129(A) of the Customs Act could be preferred against his order before the CESTAT. Therefore, while granting opportunity to the respondent to prefer revision against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals), we direct if such a revision if preferred within two months, the revision shall not be dismissed on the ground of limitation and shall be entertained on merits by the Central Government.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 304
  

  Containers contained war material/explosives - goods were not as per the description given in the bills of lading, the same were confiscated by the Customs Department - special civil applications filed by respondent were summarily dismissed by the learned Single Judge without calling upon the appellant and respondent, without considering counter affidavits to admit or controvert the averments contained therein - appellant had a legitimate right to file counter affidavits in the appeals preferred by respondent – Held that: - High Court was duty bound to consider the contents of the counter affidavits and then decide the issue relating to liability of respondent - to pay container storage charges and ground rent in the backdrop of the fact that the containers together with their contents had been confiscated by the Customs Department on the ground that war material/explosives were smuggled in the country under the garb of importing Heavy Metal Scrap and Hollow Section Tubes - High Court granted relief to respondent only on the ground that representations made by the said respondent for release of containers after de-stuffing the goods were not decided - Division Bench was not justified in relying upon the order passed in that case for the purpose of quashing the demand of container storage charges and ground rent - order is set aside and the matter is remitted to the High Court for fresh disposal of the letters patent appeals in accordance with law.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 290
  

  Supply made from DTA to a SEZ - Section 7 of the SEZ Act provided that any goods procured from the DTA to a SEZ unit would be exempt from the payment of taxes, duties or cess, under all enactments specified in the First Schedule - Section 53 of the SEZ Act provides that the SEZ shall be deemed to be a territory outside the customs territory of India, for the purpose of undertaking its authorised operations the question would be whether a SEZ does not continue to be a part and parcel of India. If a SEZ was to be treated as being outside India, there was hardly any necessity under Section 26 to exempt from customs duty any goods which are imported into a SEZ and likewise exempt export duties when exported from a SEZ – Held that: - The levy of customs duty on exports is sanctioned by Entry 83 of List I of the VII Schedule to the Constitution - provisions of the SEZ Act would render’ the provisions unconstitutional as a levy of customs duty on export of goods from India cannot be with reference to the provisions of the SEZ Act. The authorities under the SEZ Act are without jurisdiction in seeking to enforce the li ability which could arise only under the Customs Act. Hence, the instructions issued by the respondents under the impugned notification are wholly illegal and cannot be sustained - petitions are allowed accordingly.

  ---

• 2010 (7) TMI 260
  

  Duty-free import - licence had been misused - goods were not properly used for manufacture of export items - recovery of customs duty and for confiscation of raw material - Criminal action was also proposed - Held that: - concurrent finding recorded by the appellate authority as well as the Tribunal is based on appreciation of evidence and cannot be held to be perverse - No material has been misread or ignored - Appeal is dismissed

  ---

1234