|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 121 Records
-
2011 (3) TMI 653 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI
Demand - Classification - Custom authorities only opened 22 bales and on examination of these 22 bales it was found that 18 bales were containing cut and soiled material and remaining four bales containing tow in running length with negligible defects - The report of CRCL is not definite as the note given in the report is to the effect that in view of the material contained in the sample the whole consignments is to be carefully examined - the expert opinion is in respect of two samples taken from two bales only which shows that it fulfils the parameters to classify the goods as synthetic filament classifiable under Heading 5501 of the Customs Tariff - Decided in favour of the assessee
-
2011 (3) TMI 652 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Notification No. 125/2010 - Anti-dumping duty @ 266% - Designated Authority (DA for short) in its preliminary findings published on 7th September 2009 held that the domestic industry had suffered material injury by such imports and recommended imposition of provisional anti-dumping duty - in the case of Automotive Tyre Manufacturers Association v. Designated Authority, (2011 -TMI - 201474 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) - Held that: instead of driving the Petitioner to avail the statutory alternate remedy provided under Section 9C of the Customs Tariff Act 1975, this Court must quash and set aside the impugned final findings and the consequential Notification which are ex facie unsustainable and are non est in the eye of law - The Writ Petition is disposed off
-
2011 (3) TMI 636 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Application of stay - there could be no doubt that the Order-in-Appeal against the same is an interim order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and not an order within the meaning of Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act, 1962 - If that be so, it is to be held that the present appeal of the Commissioner against an interim order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is not maintainable - Any genuine case of the Revenue cannot be allowed to be defeated by any delay on the part of the Commissioner (Appeals) - It is clarified that this direction is being issued for the ends of justice under Rule 41 ibid
-
2011 (3) TMI 634 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Confiscation - No objection was raised by the importers at the time of examination, nor were they able to establish part of what was declared as heavy melting scrap and was not re-rollable scrap as found by the Department - heavy melting scrap and re-rollable scrap are recognized as two different categories of scrap and no objection was raised to the examination and finding that part of the consignment confirmed to the definition of re-rollable scrap - Appeal is rejected
-
2011 (3) TMI 616 - CESTAT, AHMEDABAD
Confiscation - Notification No. 93(RE-2007) 2004-2009, dated 1-4-2008 - there is no explanation forthcoming as to how the Non-Basmati Rice was brought to CFS when it was prohibited for export and how consignment of Basmati Rice which has already been examined by the Customs officers and was to be stuffed in the presence of Customs officers, was not stuffed in the container - It has also been brought out clearly by investigating officers that the goods were identified by the authorized surveyor of CFS with the help of CHA’s representative based on the details of shipping bills and job request for stuffing - in the earlier cases, the fine in lieu of confiscation had been reduced to 25% and in this case because of deliberate attempt on the part of the exporter and CHA and CFS, there is a need to consider the quantum of reduction of the redemption fine Regarding penalty - penalty imposed on CHA and CFS of Rs. 2.5 lakhs and of Rs. 1 lakhs, cannot be considered excessive. Similarly, penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs on M/s. J.G. Agro Foods also cannot be said to be excessive - Appeal is rejected
-
2011 (3) TMI 593 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
100% export-oriented unit (EOU) - Debonding - Whether the appellant is eligible for the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification No.21/2002-Cus. dated 1.3.2002 (Serial No.84) in respect of the imported raw materials found in stock at the stage of debonding of the EOU - Held that:- the appellant s claim for the benefit of concessional rate of duty under Notification 21/02-Cus. read with condition 5(b) of Notification 53/97-Cus. is ill-conceived and unsustainable. - At the time of payment of duty on the raw materials present in stock during the period of debonding (16.1.2003 10.7.2003), the appellant was still an EOU and, therefore, they were not entitled to claim such benefit at that time too. Collection of differential amount of customs duty - levy and collection of taxes except by authority of law - Requirment of payment of duty on raw material in stock at the time of debonding - The demand of duty raised in terms of the B-17 bond without invoking Section 28 of the Act - Held that:- A conjoint reading of condition No.2 and condition No.14(3) of the B-17 Bond would indicate that an amount of customs duty (with interest) leviable from the appellant could be demanded through a show-cause notice under Section 28 of the Customs Act and, in the event of default, could be recovered in the manner laid down in sub-section (1) of Section 142 of the Act. - What is fatal to the Revenue is not the non-mention of Section 28 in the show-cause notice but the absence of the essential ingredients of the said Section in the notice. The demand of duty without invoking Section 28 of the Act, i.e., without alleging the necessary ingredients thereof, is not sustainable. - Demand is also not maintainable beyond the normal period of limitation.
-
2011 (3) TMI 537 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Refund - Time barred - Prima facie, there seems to be an apparent conflict between the second proviso which states that the limitation of six months shall not apply where duty has been paid under protest and the fourth proviso which states that the time limit of six months shall apply from the date of a judgment/appellate order - In this case, the protest was lodged by the appellants challenging the assessment made by the Department and claiming nil rate of duty - after the fourth proviso came into operation, The appellants had only six months time from 24-5-2007 to file a refund claim - Decided against the assessee
-
2011 (3) TMI 533 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Confiscation - Penalty - 100% EOU - There is no evidence on record which indicated that the Tamilnadu State Pollution Control Board were made aware of the arrangement for getting the work of washing done through another unit in Gujarat who was having facility as well as necessary clearance from the Gujarat Pollution Control Board - There is no dispute that the 100% EOU who imports material can get the processes done through a jobber following the procedure prescribed therein - Held that: the goods are not prohibited goods for import by the 100% EOU and that there is no mis-declaration of goods imported by the respondents, the question of confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty does not arise - Decided in favour of the assessee
-
2011 (3) TMI 518 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Deemed exports - 100% Export Oriented Units (EOUs) do not export 100% of their production - Notification No. 2/95 dated 4-1-1995 - Though it is very clear that DTA sale entitlement of EOU/EPZ unit under paragraph 9.9(b) would be up to 50% of FOB value of exports (i.e. physical export only) - This office has no means to verify if the value of deemed exports were taken into account while computing the FOB value of exports for the relevant period since the DTA sale entitlement is granted to the unit based on the basis of application filed duly certified by chartered accountant and bond officer - The fact that deemed exports are counted towards fulfilment of export obligation as a concession under a separate provision namely para 9.10 cannot automatically entitle the appellants to a duty concession under para 9.9 and Notification No. 2/95, when the lawmakers have not specifically provided for inclusion of such domestic clearances for the purposes of calculating DTA entitlement - Appeal is dismissed
-
2011 (3) TMI 482 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT
Classification - Duty free reple-nishment (DFRC) Scheme - During the course of investigation, the appellant-exporter sent a communication addressed to the Commissioner of Customs intimating that their staff had discharged a wrong consignment and sought permission to re-export all the goods - it is held prima facie they are satisfied that there is no collusion and the department has verified the consignment and collected the duty payable - The appeal is remanded to the Tribunal to be heard along with the Customs appeal No. 411/2009 filed by the importer after taking note of the judgment of the Full Bench of the Tribunal as well as the judgments of the Apex Court in accordance with law - Appeal is allowed by way of remand to Tribunal
-
2011 (3) TMI 455 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Shipping bills - Conversion of shipping bills to DEPB shipping bills - Held that:- Once an application is made to the Commissioner, he is required to consider the same in accordance with law and decide the same one way or the other - Thus, the petition is disposed of with a direction to Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, to decide the application made by the petitioner for conversion of free shipping bills to DEPB shipping bills (Annexure A to the petition), in accordance with law within a period of six weeks from today, after giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.
-
2011 (3) TMI 344 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Validity of the policy circular dated 22-12-2010 - In all the Foreign Trade Policy (“FTP” for short) announced by the Central Government from time-to-time, cotton yarn was freely exportable - By a notification dated 9-4-2010 issued under Section 5 of the FTP 2009-2014, the Central Government for the first time imposed restriction on export of cotton yarn by directing that the contracts for export of cotton yarn shall be registered with the Textile Commissioner prior to shipment and clearance for export of cotton yarn consignments shall be given by customs authorities after verifying that the contracts have been registered - with effect from 1-4-2010 the office of the Textile Commissioner abruptly and without any prior intimation stopped registration of cotton yarn exports, as a result whereof, the petitioners who had firm contracts could not export cotton yarn which were manufactured and kept ready for export whether the Central Government was justified in accepting the recommendation of the CYAB and take a policy decision to ban export of cotton yarn beyond 720 million kgs. during 2010-2011 (upto 31-3-2011) - It is relevant to note that the notification dated 22-10-2010 issued under Section 5 of the 1992 Act permitting export of cotton yarn under licence has been made effective from 1-10-2010 - in the facts of the present case restriction imposed on permitting export under licence by a notification issued under Section 5 of the 1992 Act on 22-10-2010 cannot be faulted - Notification No. 14 dated 22-12-2010 issued under Section 5 of the 1992 Act is valid and the petitioners to whom EARC’s have not been granted are entitled to seek licence for export of cotton yarn in respect of their contract with the foreign customers - Application is rejected
-
2011 (3) TMI 315 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Pre-deposit - By a show¬cause notice dated 14¬05¬2004, the Office of the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise, Aurangabad called upon the petitioner to show-cause as to why the petitioner should not be held liable for service tax for receiving technical services on payment of US$ 45 million in instalments as per TTA dated 01-10-2001 - Cost sheet relating to imports found during the course of search shows that US$ 1000 has been shown as lumpsum payment - Once that amount is capitalized while allocating depreciation for the purpose of costs of the car assembled, automatically the amount paid towards TTA gets allocated to a car - As regards the financial hardship, the Tribunal took note that the petitioner had cash and bank balance of more than Rs.127 crores as on 31¬12¬2009 and sundry debtors had to pay about more than Rs.75 crores Similarly, the argument that the petitioner is entitled to CVD amounting to Rs.38.5 crores and, therefore, the petitioner cannot be subjected to pre¬deposit is also unacceptable, because, taking credit would arise only when the duty is paid - n the present case, it is the case of the Revenue that the amount of US$ 45 million paid to Skoda under the Technology Transfer Agreement was in fact part of the value of 45,000 car kits supplied by Skoda to the petitioner from time¬to¬time and that amount has been recovered from the customers by adopting different accounting methods - The writ petition is dismissed - However, the time to deposit the amount of Rs.30.00 crores is extended by further period of six weeks from today
-
2011 (3) TMI 313 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Demand - Time barred - Applicability of Section 142(1) ( c ) (ii) - Subsequent purchaser - the agreement of sale between M/s. Falcon Beverages India (P) Ltd., and M/s. Aradhana Bottling company is dated 12.1.1994 - On this date, the proviso to Section 142(1)(c)(ii) of the Customs Act was not in force, It came into effect only on 10.9.2004 i.e. 10 years after signing the agreement and the sale - The proviso states that recovery from the person succeeding to the goods, materials etc. by way of attachment will be based on a written approval of the Commissioner of Customs for the recovery of amount payable by such predecessor at the time of such transfer or disposal or change - the purchaser in this case i.e. the petitioner was under no obligation to bear the duty liability as the goods, which was sold, did not suffer any duty liability on the date of sale - Hence, the first issue is answered against the respondents Proviso to Section 142(1)(c)(ii) of the Act provides for obtaining written approval from the Commissioner of Customs for the purpose of recovering the amount so payable by the said purchaser at the time of transfer or otherwise disposal by change - In the absence of specific order by the Commissioner of Customs as prescribed under the Act, the Tax Recovery Officer has no authority to issue the impugned proceedings against the petitioner - Hence, the second issue is also answered against the respondents Except sending series of letters, which were not served on the importer, no effective steps appears to have been taken to serve on the importer and adjudicate the case - It is, therefore, clear that the concerned officer of the respondents has wasted his time sending notices time and again without proper service and slept over the issue for more than a decade - The delay and laches remain unexplained - The claim for duty against the petitioner is not justified as the inordinate delay and laches on the part of the department further disentitles them to take action against the petitioner - Hence, the third issue is also answered against the respondents
-
2011 (3) TMI 307 - PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Seizure - 204 gold biscuits - The trial Court found that the offence under Section 135 of the Customs Act is proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and convicted the accused - It is not in dispute that petitioner is in jail as per the custody certificate w.e.f. 3.8.2010. It is also not disputed that petitioner remained in jail as under trial w.e.f. 3.4.2002 to 24.7.2002 - In the opinion of this Court, on the date of incident i.e. 31.5.1989, minimum sentence under Section 135 of the Customs Act was one year imprisonment - Petitioner be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case
-
2011 (3) TMI 292 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Suspension of CHA licence - It is true that there is no prescribed format for an authorization under Regulation 13(a) - In the normal course of importation and clearance of goods, the importer would supply the import documents such as Import General Manifest, Invoice, Packing List etc. to his CHA with a covering letter wherein the CHA is authorized to file bill of entry and attend to all other requirements for clearance of the goods and also the particulars of the import documents are mentioned - Once the goods are cleared upon completion of Customs formalities and out-of-Customs-charge order under Section 47 of the Customs Act is obtained by the CHA and delivered to his client, there is nothing else to be done by the CHA. It is not the CHA s obligation under the CHALR to arrange post-clearance operations like transportation of the goods for his client Regarding breach of Regulation 13(k) - Held that: this charge not proved after noting that, during the course of inquiry, the CHA produced a zerox copy of the register of import which showed the documents to be accounted for - Decided in the favour of the assessee
-
2011 (3) TMI 275 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Transfer of Residence Rules - Permitted to clear the goods for home consumption - The Hon ble High Court s judgment in Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Vs. Ganji Mallaiah (2010 -TMI - 202210 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT), wherein it was inter alia held to the effect that it was necessary for the importer to prove his ownership or title to the vehicle for the period of his stay abroad - The respondent satisfied the requirement of having to possess the vehicle for not less than one year abroad for the purpose of claiming clearance of the vehicle under TR Rules - The appellant has not made out a formidable case for re-export of the vehicle at this distant point of time - It is yet to be shown as to in what manner the vehicle, if permitted to be cleared for home consumption, would be hazardous to this country - The appellate Commissioner s order allowing clearance of the goods for home consumption is fair and just in the facts
-
2011 (3) TMI 266 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Assessable value - Other necessary documents such as copy of purchase order, copy of letter of credit, copy of manufacturer's process certificate/test certificate were also produced with the bill of entry - The learned counsel for the respondent submits that the above evidence now produced by the appellant cannot be admitted as it would be beyond the scope of the Revenue s case as made out in the relevant show-cause notice - This query has not been answered by the appellant even in the present appeal - The learned SDR has fairly submitted that the original authority committed a mistake in the context of adopting the contemporary import value. It is submitted that the value declared in the relevant bill of entry covering the contemporary import of identical goods was, in fact, Euro 179 per cubic metre and not US$ 179 per cubic metre - Appeal is dismissed
-
2011 (3) TMI 246 - CESTAT, BANGALORE
Suspension of licences - CHA - Anti Dumping Duty (ADD) - Notification No.12/2010 Cus. dated 19.02.2010 - Principles of natural justice - Regulation 20 (3) of CHALR - on presentation of the shipping documents for clearance of the impugned goods under Notification No.12/2010 dated 19.2.2010, DHL advised MITPL in July 2010 that the consignment would have to suffer higher ADD unless the notification was amended - This submission as regards consulting DHL is not corroborated or tested in cross examination before the impugned order was passed - it is not established that DHL themselves had carried out any incriminating corrections of documents - It was obvious and known to the CHA that the exporter in the invoice was initially by TBV Netherlands as reflected also in other shipping documents - There is no necessity of putting the party on notice of such action proposed and the material relied on - Appeal is rejected by way of remand
-
2011 (3) TMI 237 - CESTAT, MUMBAI
Valuation - The Bill of Entry was assessed by the Appraising Group by loading the value of the goods to the extent of 200% without giving any notice to the importer or their CHA and without conveying any reason for such loading of value - The appellate authority further noted that the department had also not adduced any documentary evidence justifying enhancement of the value of the goods - The ld.JDR submits that the order passed by the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is not a speaking order and further that the correct Valuation Rule was not invoked in this case - The rule further provides that if the assessing authority seeks to reject the declared value and to proceed to determine the correct value, it should first intimate to the importer in writing the grounds for doubting the truth or accuracy of the declared value, at the request of the importer - Appeal is allowed by way of remand
|
