|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 41 to 60 of 100 Records
-
2011 (4) TMI 669
Duty liability - Shortage of the quantity of 7469 kgs. of CCL imported by availing the benefit of Notification No.25/99(Cus) read with Customs (Import of Goods on Concessional rate of duty for manufacture of Excisable goods) Rules, 1996 - Appellant is not able to prove their case - As per the said Customs Rules, it is mandated that the appellant should and maintain the stock registers of the goods imported at concessional rate of duty for the use in his factory - In the absence of any such evidence that the said short found quantity was in fact used by the appellant in his factory premises for the purpose of manufacture - Decided against the assessee. As regards the penalty imposed on the Managing Partner of RRE u/s 112(a) - Find that he was the person who was looking after the day-to-day affairs of the company, he should have been more diligent to check and counter-check the stock position in his factory premises - Due to his non-effective supervision, there was a shortage of 7469 kgs. of CCL which were imported under concessional rate of duty - Hence,uphold the penalty on the Managing Partner. Demand - Misdeclared the description and value of the goods - there is no evidence that the said declaration of description was incorrect or mis-declared as there is no chemical examiner's report of the drawn sample, if any - if an expert opinion indicates that the sample of imported goods on visual inspection is of sub-standard and there being no contrary evidence from any other expert or chemical examiner, we concur with the findings in the impugned order - In the absence of any evidence to indicate that the goods which were imported and cleared during the material period were not rejects but were of prime quality - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2011 (4) TMI 619
Detention of the consignment - it is clear that although no specific order of seizure has been issued to the writ-petitioner, it is apparent that there has been actual detention of the goods under Section 110 of the Act and time will run for giving show-cause notice under Section 124(a) from at least 4th August, 2010. - In the case before us, it appears that the respondent authority has also treated the seizure to be operative and consequently, has started investigation by issuing summons under Section 108 of the Act and has also given show-cause notice for extension of time by further six months. - we do not approve her finding that there is no time period for issuing an order of seizure under Section 110 of the Act.
-
2011 (4) TMI 614
Appointment as custodian - principles of natural justice - It was further submitted that the petitioner company has been holding the custodianship of the Surat Special Economic Zone since the last fifteen years and has never violated any of the provisions of the notification appointing the petitioner company as custodian and has also followed the guidelines scrupulously and diligently without there being any complaints against the petitioner - A perusal of the provisions of the SEZ Act shows that the same does not contain any express provision for appointment of custodian. The power to appoint a custodian can be traced only to Section 45 of the Customs Act, which expressly confers the power of appointment of custodian on the Commissioner of Customs alone the court is of the prima facie view that Section 12 of the SEZ Act does not empower the Development Commissioner to appoint a custodian under Section 45 of the Customs Act, inasmuch as the powers under the Customs Act are required to be expressly assigned to the Development Commissioner under clause (e) of sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Act - it is a well-settled position of law that acquiescence or waiver would not vest in an authority a power which is otherwise not vested in it. In the circumstances, in view of the findings recorded hereinabove, the said contention also does not merit acceptance - Held that: petitioner is entitled to interim relief
-
2011 (4) TMI 568
Import of medical instruments - claiming exemption as charitable hospital - Is SGRH a charitable hospital? - Held that:- At this point in time several years after the import of the equipments and several years after the Notification No. 64 of 1988 has ceased to exist, to brush aside the claim of the Petitioner that it should be treated as a charitable hospital, would not be justified. Consequently, this Court is of the view that the claim of the Petitioner to be treated as a charitable hospital for the purposes of Notification No. 64 of 1988 ought to be accepted by the Respondents. Does the Petitioner satisfy the requirement of Para (2) of the Table appended to Notification No. 64 of 1988 - Held that:- As per the letter of DGHS, Indoor treatment facilities are provided free of cost to all families with income of less than Rs. 500/- per month. For this purpose 49 beds reserved, out of total 498 beds which is not less than 10% of total bed strength of the hospital/institution. - he above letter was placed on record before this Court by the DGHS itself It is not clear whether there was any correspondence between the Delhi Administration and the DGHS in that behalf The DGHS obviously accepted the certification by the DHS. Considering that this is a letter of 21st July 1992 and relates to the figures of 1987 to 1989, there is no reason why the DGHS should disbelieve it. - This Court is satisfied upon an examination of the said affidavit of the trustees that there was substantial compliance with the spirit and objective of Notification No. 64 of 1988 by SGRH during the period that the said Notification was in force. Therefore, the Petitioner should be held to have satisfied the requirements of para 2 of the Table appended to Notification No. 64 of 1988. - Benefit of exemption allowed - Decided in favor of assessee.
Mere suspension of license, in the facts of the present case, would be wholly unjustified. Ordinarily, matters of discipline lie in the realm of the competent authority i.e., the Commissioner of Customs who is best placed to understand the importance of the CHA in a customs area, and the trust and confidence reposed on him by the customs department. - he punishment imposed on the respondent, by the Commissioner of Customs, of revocation of their license, when viewed in the light of the grave and serious acts of misconduct held established, is justified. The punishment imposed is not one which can be said to shock the conscience of courts/Tribunals. The order passed by the CESTAT on mere surmises and conjectures and their interference, with the punishment imposed by the Commissioner, on grounds of misplaced sympathy is in excess of their jurisdiction, and gives rise to a substantial question of law necessitating interference by this Court under Section 130 of the Customs Act. The order of CESTAT is, therefore, set aside, and the order of the Commissioner, revoking the license of the respondent CHA, is affirmed. The appeal is, accordingly, allowed. However, in the circumstances, without costs.
-
2011 (4) TMI 552
Confiscation - Differential duty - During the course of investigation, it was noticed by the officers that the respondent has cleared 10 consignments under various Bills of Entry from 19/8/1998 to 2/12/1999 imported through Hyderabad - The show-cause notice proceeded on the basis that the imported goods were of the prime quality but were mis-declared as rejects relying upon chiefly on the statements of buyers including that of importer and on the basis of investigation in the past cases of the importer at Hyderabad elsewhere - Held that: the value if declared is sought to be rejected and Revenue should establish details of contemporaneous imports of such or similar goods that the price declared is not correct transaction value and value has been determined under CVR - there is no evidence that the said declaration of description was incorrect or mis-declared as there is no chemical examiner s report of the drawn sample - Decided in favour of the assessee
-
2011 (4) TMI 546
DEPB Scheme - Not to reduce the credit - Al though the Customs have permitted the exports of the impugned products, a doubt arose as to the proper use of preservatives/chemicals as per SION - The DRI conducted investigations and issued show cause notices. The show cause notices were sent to the DGFT authorities - The DGFT, have passed orders dropping the cases - In other words, DGFT have decided not to reduce the credit given to the assessee - Once the cases against the assesses are dropped by the Competent Authority, there is no basis for the Customs Authorities to demand any duty under Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 and also interpretation of Notification No. 34/1997 of the Customs is involved. Appeal to High court - Maintainability - whether the revenue was justified in demanding the duty - disputes relate to rate of duty - The said question falls squarely within the exception carved out in Section 130 of the Customs Act - Hence, the appeal is rejected as not maintainable, reserving liberty to the Revenue to approach the Apex Court.
-
2011 (4) TMI 540
Exemption - Notification No. 29/97 - The benefit under the notification is available, inter alia, in case of a licence issued with an obligation to export products related to agriculture etc. Since the EPCG committee has amended the licence by endorsing that “Sorbitol” is an “Agro-product”, the Commissioner has rightly extended the benefit of exemption from payment of CVD under the above notification - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2011 (4) TMI 533
Condonation of delay - waiver of pre-deposit - Notification No. 63/88-Cus - Confiscation - One of the conditions was that the hospital should produce a certificate from DGHS to the effect that the hospital fell in either of the categories specified in the table annexed to the Notification - Prima facie, therefore, the appellant is not entitled to claim the benefit of the above Notification and hence liable to pay the amount of duty quantified by the Commissioner - it appears the duty on the goods is also liable to be paid by the importer in the context of redeeming the goods - Appeal is allowed by way of direction to pre-deposit the redemption fine alongwith an amount of Rs. Five lakhs towards duty under Section 129-E of the Customs Act within a period of four weeks and report compliance on 3-6-2011
-
2011 (4) TMI 525
Customs House Agent licence - Suspension - Provisions of Regulations 13 & 20(a)(b) & (c) of the Customs House Agent Regulations, 2004 - The Commissioner while issuing the order must disclose at least the material on the date or dates on which there has been a breach based on which it has arrived at satisfaction - Apart from general observation, find that no material has been disclosed based upon which the power under Regulation 20 has been invoked - In the absence of such disclosure, the petitioner has been deprived of the opportunity of show cause or reply to that effect - Thus, the impugned order is illegal, therefore, it is quashed and set aside.
-
2011 (4) TMI 521
Anti-dumping duty - Notification No. 41/97-Cus., dated 30-4-1997 - Board Circular No. 106/95-Cus., dated 11-10-1995 - Application for rectification of mistakes - The petitioner contends that in terms of Rule 13 of the Anti-Dumping Rules, the provisional duty could remain for a period of six months, which may be extended for a further period as provided for under Rule 14 of the Anti-Dumping Rules - The withdrawal of anti-dumping duty with effect from 22-1-2001 would, in no way, affect the levy and collection of anti-dumping duty and the earlier notifications - Once on factual findings, the Government found that there was no dumping of materials from the People’s Republic of China in the local market and hence, the anti-dumping laws could not be invoked, the question of preserving any such authority to impose duty under the anti-dumping laws, does not arise - The latter portion of the Notification, which is under challenge before this Court, clearly demands the attention of the respondents to the policy of the Government, to give a full thrust to it and not to whittle it down on any assumed interest in the name of implementing the Anti-Dumping Laws - Appeal is allowed
-
2011 (4) TMI 518
Demand - Notification No. 25/1999, dated 28-2-1999 - The notice further mentions that the senior Officers of the assessee had accepted the lapses when their statements were recorded and they had agreed to pay differential duty on the shortage noticed - CESTAT found that even in the appeal before it the Department had not placed any evidence on record to indicate that there was any suppression on the part of the respondents - all the authorities below have found that the demand was hit by limitation, the fact that the appeal ought to have been filed under the Customs Act is not disputed by the Department - Decided in favour of the assessee
-
2011 (4) TMI 513
Adjudication - Declining opportunity for cross-examination of witnesses - No doubt cross-examination is a valuable right, the effect of not permitting the cross-examination depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case - At this interim stage when decision on merits is yet to be taken, we do not find any ground to adjudicate upon the question whether absence of cross-examination will affect the case of the petitioner - Question can be examined at appropriate stage by the concerned authorities and by this Court, if necessary -The petition is disposed of accordingly.
-
2011 (4) TMI 496
Interest under Section 28AB - The issue canvassed by the appellant-importer, was that they are entitled for interest @ 12% on delayed refund instead of 6% allowed in the impugned order - notice that appellants deposited amount in September, October and in November 2004, as per the directions of the department. In September 2004, the Hon ble Gujarat High Court had dismissed the SCA was dismissed in September 2004 and SLP was filed in the Hon ble Supreme Court in October 2004. In July 2005, the Hon ble Supreme Court ordered that if the amount directed to be deposited by the Tribunal is deposited, the appeals before the Tribunal has to be restored and decided on merits. In these circumstances, the amount deposited by the appellant is to be treated as pre-deposit since the matter had not attained finality during the relevant period - Therefore, refund is to be treated as refund of pre-deposit made when the appeal was pending - There is no dispute that the amounts deposited is duty but this is not the issue which has been taken into account while precedent decisions have allowed the interest at 12% on the refunds claimed in respect of pre-deposit - Therefore, following the judicial discipline, consider it appropriate that interest in this case also is to be allowed @ 12% - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2011 (4) TMI 453
Penalty - Exemption under Notification No.21/2002-Cus, dt.1.3.02 - As the appellant had sold the said oil in the open market, proceedings were initiated against them which culminated into an order passed by the lower authorities confirming demand along with interest and imposing 100% penalty - the appellant, they have deposited 25% of the penalty within 30 days from the date of passing of order by Additional Commissioner - Even otherwise also, no such option was extended to them by lower authorities - Hon'ble High Court of Gujarat in the case of M/s Exotic Associates Vs. CCE (2009 -TMI - 76674 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT), has held that such option can be extended even at appeal stage - reduce the penalty to 25%.
-
2011 (4) TMI 450
EOU - whether the HSD Oil imported by the respondent, who is a 100% EOU, was required to discharge the Additional Customs Duty (HSD) - the imported material stand utilized by them for manufacture of final product which stand exported and there is no dispute that such HSD oil stand utilized for the purposes other than one declared by 100% EOU - the issue is no more res integra and Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of M/s Paras Fab International Vs. CCE Kandla [2010 -TMI - 77759 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI], has held that the entire premises of 100% EOU has to be treated as warehouse and the goods directly imported into the EOU premises and manufacturing and other operations carried out in EOU under Customs bond, no duty liability can be fastened in respect of such goods, inasmuch as the goods do not stand removed from the 100% EOU, which has to be considered as warehouse goods - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2011 (4) TMI 422
Demand of interest u/s 18(3) - Differential duty - provisional assessment - Held that:- there was no provisions u/s 80 of the Customs Act, 1962, at the material time for demand of interest in respect of provisional assessment - It is very significant that the provisions to levy interest under Section 18(3) on the differential amount paid by the importer was made only on 13.07.2006 - Thus, the provisional assessment of bills of entry was made on a date prior to the amendment which makes it clear that no interest can be charged on the differential duty - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2011 (4) TMI 375
Valuation - Reprocessed/recycled LDPE Polythene natural granules made out of washed and cleaned Polythene Scrap - Re-test by CIPET clearly shows that the goods are not entirely reprocessed/recycled LDPE polythene natural granules but mixture of LLDPE & LDPE - The authorities below have followed Platt’s price after giving a discount of 25% on virgin LLDPE and LDPE - In the case of Radhey Shyam Ratanlal v. CC, Mumbai [2009 -TMI - 33416 - SUPREME COURT ], the Apex Court has held that contemporaneous documents like weekly bulletin of spices market indicating higher price, relied upon by the department, can be accepted for the purpose of enhancement of value - No reason to interfere with the order of the Commissioner (Appeals)- Reject the appeal.
-
2011 (4) TMI 361
Assessable value of imported goods - enhancement of redemption fine and penalty - the dispute relates to the valuation granules imported by the appellant and declared by them as LLDPE/PP plant sweeping - the fact that there is no evidence produced by the Revenue for enhancement of the value and there is no evidence of any flow back to the customer of the goods, it is stand contended before us that the Revenue had drawn samples from the consignments in question and have sent them for testing - However, before the test reports could be delivered, Commissioner passed the present impugned order - find that admittedly the test reports now being provided by the appellant were not before the adjudicating authority - Hence, it is fit to set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner for de novo adjudication, after taking into consideration the test reports in question.
-
2011 (4) TMI 328
Search and seizure - High Court, has, on a very clear assessment of the evidence, has come to the conclusion that there was no evidence to indicate that what had been seized from the accused was in fact gold and that the mere bald assertion of the prosecution that gold biscuits had been seized could not be accepted as adequate proof and it was therefore not possible to shift the burden of proof that the article smuggled was gold - High Court has accordingly opined that the onus to prove that the gold was not of foreign origin had not shifted to the accused - Appeal is dismissed
-
2011 (4) TMI 316
Demand - Confiscation - Evasion of duty - Notification No. 203/92-Cus - It is not in dispute that 288 MTs of HDPE were imported and cleared duty-free under two Advance Licences which stood in the name of M/s Nandlal Shivaldas (proprietor: Shri Nandlal Kishandas Khemani) - It is not in dispute that the Bills of Entry were filed in the name of M/s Nandlal Shivaldas and that, in one of his statements, Shri Nandlal Kishandas Khemani admitted duty liability and also paid an amount of Rs. 6 lakhs during the course of investigations - The conduct of M/s Nandlal Shivaldas in the present case is, by and large, in support of this legal position and, therefore, it is not open to this appellant to deny their duty liability - Decided against the assessee
|
