|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 61 to 80 of 100 Records
-
2011 (4) TMI 313
Penalty u/s 117 - Custom House Agent - Imported goods remained in warehouse beyond permissible warehousing period of 12 months - Did not apply for extention - Re-export - Since, the importer submitted that due to lack of market demand for the product , they are not clearing the goods, but wish to re-export the balance unclerared quantity to the foreign buyers - Held that:- mere failure by the Custom House Agent to carry out his duties in accordance with law by itself is not sufficient ground to impose personal penalty under section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962 unless there is evidence to show that the failure was on account of mala fide intention - As per the case of Syndicate Shipping Services Pvt.Ltd. Vs. CC [Chennai 2003 -TMI - 51852 - CEGAT, SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI], decided in favour of assessee.
-
2011 (4) TMI 307
Misdeclaration - Notification No. 40 CUS dated 6-6-1970 - It is also submitted that the accused-applicant in his statement recorded under Section 108 of the Customs Act in reply to Question No. 17 he has stated that earlier the firm M/s. Ruby Impex was in the name of Vicky Chawala and he was the authorized signatory and from the last year his son has transferred the firm in his name - The Live cartridges, blank cartridges and brass scrap are liable for confiscation under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014 as the import of live cartridges is prohibited as per the Trade Policy of the Government of India, Para 2.32 of Handbook of Procedures Vol. 1 of Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014 read with provisions at Sl. No. 83 of Schedule A (Prohibition of Imports into India) - Bail is rejected since the accused-applicant is said to be a senior citizen aged about 75 years, therefore, the learned trial court is directed to conclude the trail expeditiously in accordance with law
-
2011 (4) TMI 305
Application of stay - They also stated that issuance of summon to Shri Kuldeep Jhanji, the present appellant, is not verifiable and also the record does not have the particulars of statement recorded - It might be the case, where entire material must have been transmitted to the adjudicating authority in the meantime. The appellant is therefore directed to appear before the ld. Adjudicating Authority on 15th May, 2011 and make an application for fixation of date of hearing - The authority upon hearing the appellant following process of natural justice shall pass appropriate order as expeditiously as possible - Appeal are disposed of
-
2011 (4) TMI 294
Demurrage charges - Differential duty - Revenue preferred an appeal on the ground that inasmuch as the Bill of Entry were not challenged by the importer, enhanced value was required to be adopted for the purposes of assessment - Held that: mention of the fact of issuance of Show Cause Notices by Superintendent in the said Bills of Entry amounts to final assessment of Bills of Entry by raising the assessable value and showing consequent amount of duty required to be confirmed against the importer - The very fact that the document is called Show Cause Notice itself reveals that the same has been issued to the importer requiring them to show cause as to why action proposed in the notice should not be taken against them. As such, proposal is required to be adjudicated in accordance with principles of natural justice and cannot be held to be final adjudication of the issue - Decided in favour of the assessee
-
2011 (4) TMI 287
Review order - Limitation - Held that:- the provisions of Section 129D(3) clearly provides of period of 1 year from the date of the decision or order of the adjudicating authority. As such, the date of issuance of the order is irrelevant. He submits that the issue is no more res-integra and stand settled by the decision of the Larger Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CCE Chennai Vs. M/s Standard Pencil Pvt.Ltd [2004 -TMI - 49000 - CESTAT, NORTHERN BENCH, NEW DELHI]- Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2011 (4) TMI 281
Waiver of pre-deposit - Misdeclared the value of the imported goods - Held that:- the imported goods have been insured for a value ten times higher than the value declared before the customs authorities - The Tribunal has recorded a finding that the director of the company in his confessional statement made under Section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962 admitted that there is under valuation - It is not in dispute that the statement made under Section 108 of the Customs Act has not been retracted - Decided against the assessee.
-
2011 (4) TMI 271
Demand - Classification - Notification No.26/2000 dated 1.3.2000 - concessional rate of duty - All these documents relate to the month of March 2003, i.e., after the period of dispute and are intended to show that remelted copper ingots were imported by the appellant from the Sri Lankan exporter at US$ 1550 PMT after the period of dispute also - it is pointed out that the average value of copper scrap imported by M/s. Sri Chirag Pvt. Ltd. is less than 65% of the average value of the remelted copper ingots imported from them by the appellant - it is necessary that all the documents produced by the appellant along with the two miscellaneous applications be received and admitted as evidence - It is open to the appellant to produce all the original documents before the Commissioner and establish that the country of origin in this case was correctly determined in accordance with the Determination of Origin Rules - Appeal is allowed by way of remand
-
2011 (4) TMI 264
Demand - Provisional assessment - Notification No.109/94 dated 12.4.1994 - Classification - It noted that Notification 146/94-Cus. exempted sports requisites, spares, accessories and consumables imported by National Sports Federation, Sports Authority of India or Sports Authority of State for use in a national or international championship or competition - the scheme, under which the subject-goods were imported, intended to encourage sportsmen in the country and that the goods were actually used for fabricating athletic track as evidenced by the Completion Certificate produced before the adjudicating authority and hence the appellant should be granted the benefit of exemption from payment of duty - Moreover, an Exemption Notification requires to be strictly construed and cannot be construed otherwise in favour of a particular party - Appeal is dismissed
-
2011 (4) TMI 263
Refund - unjust enrichment - refund of excess duty paid - As there is no doubt about nature of the goods being capital goods, in view of the decisions cited above, bar of unjust enrichment is squarely applicable to the present refund claims involved in the appeals. - Bar of unjust enrichment is applicable capital goods or any captive consumption - Bar of unjust enrichment is applicable to the PSU.
-
2011 (4) TMI 254
Pre-deposit of Customs duty and Central Excise duty - Raw materials, consumables and spares were imported free of duty in terms of Notification No.13/81-Cus as amended - The demand confirmed by the Commissioner on the ground that as per the report of Director, Software Technology Park of India, the said unit has failed to achieve the stipulated export obligation - Held that:- the appellant submits that subsequent to passing of present impugned order, they again approached the Director, Software Technology Park of India, who vide his letter dt.4.6.10, clarified that the said appellant has, in fact, fulfilled their export obligation - He submits that said letter was not placed before Commissioner and as such the matter be remanded for consideration of said report - Hence, set aside the impugned order and remand the matter to Commissioner for fresh adjudication after taking into consideration the letter dt.4.6.10 by Software Technology Park of India - Hence,appeal is allowed by way of remand.
-
2011 (4) TMI 246
Demand - Anti dumping duty - Classification - Confiscation - Notification No. 138/2002-Cus dated 10.12.2002 - It is not in dispute that the plastic base of the item can be inserted into a socket/holder in General Lighting System (GLS) or in the casing of an emergency lamp - what is referred to as CFL in common parlance is the item which is bought by the consumer from the market and inserts in the socket/holder of the GLS/casing of emergency lamp etc - If the argument of the learned consultant is accepted, the item depicted in Figure I should be identical to the glass tube found in Figure II when exploded , but it is actually not. It is nobody s case that the glass tube, when separated from the integrated CFL , could be used as a CFL without choke - the simple test for deciding whether the item imported by the appellant is a CFL without choke is to ascertain whether it is readily usable as such by a retail consumer as a lamp by just inserting in the socket/holder of his GLS - it is held that the goods imported by the appellant, being CFLs without choke , classifiable under SH 8539 31 10 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, would attract Anti-Dumping Duty in terms of Notification No. 138/02-Cus and, therefore, the order passed by the learned Commissioner in the second round of adjudication is liable to be upheld - the quantum of penalty will stand reduced to ₹ 20,000 - Decided against the assessee
-
2011 (4) TMI 239
Principles of natural justice - power of remand - Since, The show-cause notice, was issued on 7.12.2009 - The first appellate authority passed its order on 29.4.2010. In between, the original authority had passed its order on 7.1.2010 - Obviously, the Order-in-Original was passed in less than a month from the date on which the show-cause notice was received by the party - Apparently, the party was not given reasonable opportunity to reply to the show-cause notice or to be personally heard - These circumstances would call for a remand of the case to the original authority for passing fresh order in accordance with law and the principles of natural justice - Accordingly, set aside the orders of both the authorities and allow this appeal by way of remand with a direction to the original authority to undertake de novo adjudication in accordance with the principles of natural justice.
-
2011 (4) TMI 233
Principles of natural justice - Personal hearing was re-fixed for the 3rd time on 25.6.09 for which intimation was issued on 2.6.09. Shri S.N. Kantawala, Advocate vide his letter received by fax on 21.6.09 requested for further adjournment - the Commissioner(Appeals) has not granted adjournment of hearing fixed on 25.6.09 on the ground that he is not satisfied with the vague reasons forwarded by advocate - Held that:- really fail to understand if the above reasons given by the advocate are not sufficient reasons, what could be a better ground for seeking adjournment than the one advanced by the advocate - Further note that the hearing was fixed on25.6.09 which was sought to be adjourned by advocate to 15.7.09 - The Commissioner(Appeals) has passed the impugned order on 13.10.09 - Cannot appreciate the fact of non-granting another date of hearing on 15.7.09 as requested by the advocate, especially when the order stand passed by the Commissioner after a period of more than 3-4 months from the last date of hearing - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2011 (4) TMI 228
Confiscation - Waste and scrap - 100% EOU - Circular No.56/2004-Cus, dt.18.10.07 and No.60/2004-Cus, dt.26.10.07 prescribed pre-inspection certificate by one of the agencies as recognized and authorized by DGFT - it can be safely concluded that the appellant fully followed the procedure required to be followed by them. Further, it is the appellant himself, who informed the Revenue about the presence of war material in the consignment in question - No knowledge or malafide stand attributed to the appellant by Commissioner in his impugned order - it is for the DGFT authority to take an appropriate action as per law against the inspection agency, including cancellation of power of inspection given to them - Decided in favour of the assessee - However, confiscation of 9.533 MTs of war material is, however, upheld
-
2011 (4) TMI 225
Classification - concessional tariff rate of duty - The benefit of doubt is extended to the importer that the goods are stainless steel scrap 303 classifiable under tariff heading 7204 of the CTA, 1975, and the proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice dt. 24.5.2002 are dropped - Held that: it is futile to examine the merits inasmuch as the impugned order stands implemented - Commissioner s order was implemented even prior to the filing of the appeal. The appeal is dismissed as infructuous
-
2011 (4) TMI 216
Confiscation - Penalty - Notification No.93(RE-2007)/2004-2009, dt.1.4.98 - There was no intention to export non basmati rice, though declared by the appellant as Basmati rice, and in as much as the export of non-Basmati rice is prohibited - CHA was not aware of the fact that consignment of rice declared as that of Basmati rice was, in fact, of non-Basmati rice - appellant has nowhere produced any evidence to show that they were dealing with non-Basmati rice for the local traders and there was any mix up of the same in their godown - Held that: imposition of separate penalty on the said appellant in terms of Section 114AA, which provides for wrong making of declaration, statements, would not be justifiable - Held that: imposition of penalty of Rs.2 lakhs (Rupees Two Lakhs only) on M/s Trinity Shipping & Allied Services, a CHA firm, imposed under Section 114 of Customs Act, 1962, separate penalty of Rs.2 lakhs (Rupees Two Lakhs only) on the said appellant under Section 114AA and penalty of Rs.2 lakhs (Rupees Two Lakhs only) on Shri Saju Perumal, Director of the CHA are set aside - Appeals are disposed of
-
2011 (4) TMI 214
Refund - Circular No. 5/2005-Cus dated 31.01.2005 - refund claim stands denied by the authorities below primarily on the ground that final assessment of bills of entry was not put to challenge by the appellant - Held that: it is not open to the party to question the correctness of the order of the adjudicating authority subsequently by filing a claim for refund on the ground that adjudicating authority had committed an error in passing his order - assessments were originally provisional and were finalised subsequently. As such, admittedly, their was an assessment order involving lis between the appellant and the Revenue. The said lis was decided in favour of the Revenue by the final assessment order - Appeal is rejected
-
2011 (4) TMI 209
Direction of release of goods - Import of goods - Second Hand Digital Multifunction Print and Copying Machines - The conditions imposed by this Court, in its earlier orders, had been confirmed by a Division Bench, (THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS), SEAPORT, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S.POLYCRAFT EXPORTS (P) LTD., AND ANOTHER) - Hence, writ petition is disposed of, directing the petitioner to deposit 25% of the enhanced value, apart from paying the applicable rate of duty on the enhanced value - On complying with the said conditions, the respondents are directed to release the goods, forthwith, with liberty to the respondents to proceed further, with the adjudication proceedings, in accordance with law.
-
2011 (4) TMI 205
Refund of fine and penalty - If the petitioner submits the necessary application before the respondent for the refund of the fine and penalty amount, amounting to Rs.2,25,000/-, consequent to the order in Appeal , the amount would be refunded, as per law - The petitioner is permitted to submit an application to the second respondent for the refund of the said amount - The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly - No costs.
-
2011 (4) TMI 200
Confiscation - Demurrage charges - Detention certificate - A mere reading of Section 45 shows that the imported goods would remain in the custody of the person approved by the Customs Commissioner, until they are cleared for home consumption or are warehoused or are transshipped in accordance with the provisions of Chapter VIII - the Calcutta High Court also in the case of Donald & Macarthy (P) Ltd. vs. Union of India reported in 1997 (89) ELT 53 (Cal.) has held that the persons or the authority responsible for the delay in lifting the goods, should be held responsible to pay the demurrage and port charges - since the petitioner is entitled to carry the goods without paying any demurrage charges for the period during which the goods were detained, the respondent cannot call upon the petitioner to pay the charges towards detention and demurrage - Decided in the favour of the assessee
|
