|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 100 Records
-
2011 (4) TMI 1524
... ...
... ... ..... ubmits that, many a hurdle is there, with regard to the finalisation of the assessment and that steps are being taken to challenge Ext.P9 as well. A minimum time of 'four months' is necessary to have the proceedings finalised in accordance with the relevant provisions of law, submits the learned Standing Counsel. 4. Having heard both the sides, this Court finds that the proceedings have to be taken to logical conclusion. Accordingly, the respondents are directed to finalize Exts.P10 and P12 in the light of the relevant provisions of law and on the basis of the relevant materials. Petitioner is at liberty to rely on Ext.P9 before the respondents and it is for the respondents to consider the applicability of the same to the given set of facts and circumstances. Final assessment order as above shall be passed as expeditiously as possible, at any rate, within 'three months' from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. Writ petition is disposed of as above.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1395
... ...
... ... ..... ger period of limitation could not have been invoked to initiate proceedings against the assessee. In other words, in determining the validity of the demand made in the show cause notice as a longer period of limitation was invoked, the same could be set aside on the ground of collusion not being made out. This clearly falls within the phrase ‘not being an order relating, among other things to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of Excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment’. Whether it is Section 35G of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or Section 130 of the Customs Act of 1962, the said question has to be determined by the Apex Court and the jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted. 6. In that view of the matter, we reject these appeals as being not maintainable reserving liberty to the Revenue to approach the Apex Court either under Section 35L of the Central Excise Act, 1944 or 130E of the Customs Act, 1962.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1289
... ...
... ... ..... o challenge the assessment order and therefore, refund claim is not admissible. Relying on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. v. Commissioner reported in (2004) 172 E.L.T. 145 (S.C.), it was rejected on the ground that the claim is barred by time. Aggrieved by the same, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Appellate Authority, which also upheld the rejection of the refund claim. Aggrieved by these two orders, the assessee preferred an appeal to the Tribunal. The Appellate Tribunal has set aside the orders and remanded the matter back to the Original Authority for a de novo enquiry. Aggrieved by the said order, the revenue is in appeal. 3. From the aforesaid facts and material on record, we are satisfied that the Tribunal committed no error in setting aside the orders passed by the lower authorities and remanding the matter back to the Original Authority for de novo enquiry. No merit in this appeal and accordingly, it is rejected.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1286
Whether the confessions made before the officers of the Central Bureau of Narcotics are admissible in evidence?
Whether the confessions made were voluntary in nature and if so without corroboration, can it form the basis for conviction?
Whether the appellant can be said to be in possession of the opium or selling the same?
-
2011 (4) TMI 1285
... ...
... ... ..... lakhs. Thus, the Tribunal rejected the appeal preferred by the Revenue as well as by the assessee. As against the same, the Revenue has come before this Court with the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal. 3. On going through the order of the Tribunal as well as the Original Authority, we do not find any ground to interfere with the order of the Tribunal. Given the fact that Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 provides discretion in levying penalty to the maximum of three times the value of the goods as declared by the exporter or the value as determined under this Act, whichever is greater, rightly, the Tribunal considered the facts of the case and reduced the penalty. Thus, the order of the Tribunal is well in accordance with the provisions of the Acts. 4. In the circumstances, we do not find any question of law, much less substantial questions of law to admit the above Civil Miscellaneous Appeal and the same is dismissed at the admission stage itself. No costs.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1281
... ...
... ... ..... customs duty? As this appeal is filed under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 the said question falls squarely within the exception carved out in Section 130 of the Customs Act, ‘an order relating, among other things, to the determination of any question having a relation to the rate of duty of excise or to the value of goods for purposes of assessment’, and the High Court has no jurisdiction to adjudicate the said issue, as held by this Court in the case of Commissioner of Central Excise v. M/s. Mangalore Refineries and Petro Chemicals Limited, in CEA No. 6/2007, D.D. 1-9-2010. The appeal lies to the Apex Court under Section 130E which alone has exclusive jurisdiction to decide the said question. In that view of the matter, the appeal is rejected as not maintainable, reserving liberty to the Revenue to approach the Apex Court. The High Court registry is directed to return the certified copies of the orders produced, to the Department, to prefer the appeal.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1279
EPCG scheme – import of cars - Export obligation - export obligation - export obligation with the direct use of the imported cars - capital goods capable of generating convertible foreign exchange - respondents have fulfilled their export obligation.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1223
Whether Appellant conviction under Sections 8/21(b) of the Narcotics Drugs & Psychotropic Substance Act, 1985 (hereinafter referred to as “the NDPS Act”) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and a fine of Rs.25,000/- with the direction that in default of payment of fine, he would undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year was correct?
Held that:- Appeal allowed. The view taken by the High Court is unsustainable. In the trial it was necessary for the prosecution to establish by cogent evidence that the alleged quantities of charas and ganja were seized from the possession of the accused. The best evidence would have been the seized materials which ought to have been produced during the trial and marked as material objects. There is no explanation for this failure to produce them. Mere oral evidence as to their features and production of panchnama does not discharge the heavy burden which lies on the prosecution, particularly where the offence is punishable with a stringent sentence as under the NDPS Act. In this case, we notice that panchas have turned hostile so the panchnama is nothing but a document written by the police officer concerned. The suggestion made by the defence in the cross-examination is worthy of notice. It was suggested to the prosecution witnesses that the landlady of the house in collusion with the police had lodged a false case only for evicting the accused from the house in which they were living. Finally, the investigating officer was also not examined. Against this background, to say that, despite the panch witnesses having turned hostile, the non-examination of the investigating officer and non-production of the seized drugs, the conviction under the NDPS Act can still be sustained, is far-fetched.
The appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and acquit him of the charges and set aside the judgments and orders passed by the trial court and the High Court.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1217
Detention orders - Held that:- Appeal allowed. Detention orders quashed. In the present case, the charge against the detenu was of selling expired drugs after changing their labels. Surely the relevant provisions in the Indian Penal Code and the Drugs and Cosmetics Act were sufficient to deal with this situation. Hence, in our opinion, for this reason also the detention order in question was illegal.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1179
Benefit of Customs Notification No. 21/2002 dated 1.3.2002 (Sr. No. 480) - whether available to the goods imported by the respondent i.e.Vinnolit SA 1062/7 (Polymer of Vinyl Chloride) imported vide Bill of Entry No. 673027 dated 17.1.2006 - whether this copolymer can be called a polymer of vinyl chloride? - Held that:- As per the description of goods against the main heading 3904, which reads thus Polymers of vinyl chloride or of other halogenated olefins, in primary forms - Thus, the vinyl acetate is a halogenated olefin - Therefore, the copolymer of vinyl chloride and vinyl acetate must fall under the broad category of polymers of vinyl chloride as mentioned in the first part of the description of goods against Heading 3904 - the goods imported by the respondent can be regarded as a polymer of vinyl chloride for all purposes of heading 3904 - The item answers the description of goods at Sr. No. 480 of the Table annexed to Notification No. 21/2002-Cus and is eligible for the benefit of the Notification - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1176
Immunity from fine, penalty and prosecution - Unaccompanied Baggage - attempt to smuggle the goods into India in the guise of unaccompanied baggage - two applicants have fully admitted the demand of duty as made against them in the Show Cause Notice and have also promptly deposited the same, the prayer made by them for granting full immunity from fine, penalty etc. - Held that:- The applicants cannot be said to have acted in a bona fide manner when they visited abroad and purchased goods worth over Rupees two Crores with intent to import the same for their personal use, yet they did not import the goods as their own personal Baggage but entrusted the responsibility to a Freight Forwarder who transshipped the goods from another port in the name of persons clearly unrelated to the two applicants. The covert methods used for transshipping the goods clearly expose the collusion of the applicants in giving effect to their mala fide intent to evade duty. It is evident from the facts and circumstances of the case that the two applicants made an attempt to evade Customs duty by so organizing the imports as to avert direct responsibility for defrauding the Revenue. The Bench therefore holds that in view of gross misdeclaration of the contents and the value of goods in BDFs, the imported goods have been rendered liable for confiscation and the two applicants have also rendered themselves liable to penalty for their act of omission and commission committed in relation to the imported goods.
Redemption fine and penalty reduced and immunity granted from in excess amount fixed for this purpose. Full immunity granted from prosecution.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1173
Confiscation - import of a new car - import of car from Japan, did not produce the required type approval certificate pleading that in spite of efforts they could not get the same - importer had applied to the accredited agency i.e. Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport, Japan for issue of the type approval certificate/COP, the agency declining to issue a certificate – Held that:- law cannot ask a person to do the impossible, held that in such a case, the condition of production of type approval certificate cannot be insisted, Commissioner’s order confiscating the car and imposing penalty is not sustainable, appeal is allowed
-
2011 (4) TMI 1172
CHA - CHA had replaced the invoice and packing list accompanying the Bill of Entry filed, without the permission of the appropriate customs authority - employees of the CHA had forged the said documents – Held that:- illegal acts, misdeed by an employee cannot be said to have been committed with knowledge or connivance of the CHA or in the course of his employment with the CHA hence CHA cannot be held responsible for such acts, no specific allegations against the CHA giving reasons for revocation of the licence, the impugned order is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside, penalty of forfeiture of security deposit of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on the CHA is not justified and the same is vacated, appeal is allowed
-
2011 (4) TMI 1144
Seizure – smuggled goods – Held that:- no mark of country of origin on the goods and it is only on the basis of trade opinion of M/s. Bharat Trading Co. that the department alleges that the goods are of third country origin, Since the goods are not covered by Section 123 of Customs Act, 1962, the burden of proving that the same are smuggled is on the department, which has not been discharged, confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty on the appellant is not sustainable, appeal is allowed
-
2011 (4) TMI 1143
Writ petition - petitioners seek a direction to the second respondent not to encash the bank guarantees until the statutory period of limitation prescribed for preferring appeals expires or if appeals have been preferred, until the stay petitions preferred in the appeals are disposed of - respondents submitted, on instructions, that in view of the directions issued by this Court in Ext.P1 judgment and Ext.P3 order, the second respondent will not encash the bank guarantees until the statutory period of limitation prescribed for filing appeals from Exts.P4 and P5 expires and will encash the bank guarantees only if the petitioners do not prefer appeals within the said period, writ petition disposed of
-
2011 (4) TMI 1142
Condonation of delay - respondent points out that the appeals filed by them, all directed against Order-in-Original No.189/2009 dated 30.12.08 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Adjudication), Mumbai) were allowed by way of remand vide Order No. A/146 to 200/09/CSTB/C.II dated 13.8.09 and, therefore, the Revenue's appeal is also liable to be disposed of likewise - appeal allowed by way of remand, Revenue's appeal stands disposed of
-
2011 (4) TMI 1141
Seizure and confiscation - redemption fine and penalties - search - statement was recorded wherein it was stated that he has lost the original IEC and has not lodged any compliant with the police department. He further submitted that he is working for some person on commission basis and he is not the real importer of the said goods imported under the impugned bill of entry, these goods pertain to one Shri Atul Sanpal - appellants submits that it is admitted fact that the goods were imported by M/s. Sharp Enterprises for Shri Atul Sonpal- Held that:- no violation of the provisions of Customs Act, order is set aside, appeals are allowed
-
2011 (4) TMI 1140
Refund of certain excess amounts of duty paid by them, without the bar of unjust enrichment – Held that:- in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. (2004 - TMI - 47045 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) held a refund claim to be not maintainable in the absence of successful challenge to the assessment on the basis of which the duty was paid by the assessee, without successful challenge to assessment of goods, the assessee cannot claim refund of any amount of duty which is claimed to have been paid wrongly, appeals are dismissed
-
2011 (4) TMI 1139
Stay application - CHA licence - Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, has prohibited the appellants from carrying out their business in Chennai Customs jurisdiction, with immediate effect and until further orders – Held that:- Commissioner has the power under Regulation 21 to issue an order of prohibition prohibiting a CHA from working in one or more sections of the custom house, order of prohibition does not warrant to be stayed during pendency of the appeal apart from the fact that prima facie, stay application is dismissed
-
2011 (4) TMI 1138
Custom House Agents Licence – Held that:- adjudicating Commissioner’s action in revoking a licence, granted by another Commissioner of a different jurisdiction is also prima facie contrary to the Board’s Circular No. 9/2010-Cus. dated 8-4-2010, which in paragraph 5.2 clarifies that necessary action for suspension or revocation of CHA licence should be initiated only by the Commissioner who had issued the licence, stay the operation of the impugned order during pendency of the appeal and allow the stay petition filed by the appellants, appeal is also allowed
|
