|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 100 Records
-
2011 (4) TMI 193
Question of law - The third respondent is directed to dispose of the representations, on merits and in accordance with law, within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - The petitioner is directed to furnish to the third respondent copies of the representations, along with a copy of this order - It is made clear that this Court, by this order, has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the matter - Hence, the writ petition is disposed of accordingly - No costs
-
2011 (4) TMI 188
CHA license suspended - The fabricated documents were (one) letter of State Bank of India, Branch IBD, Mumbai to the effect that no remittances have been made to the Chinese Shipper in respect of the H.R. coils in question and (two) letter from Ahwin Impex, the importer to the effect that they are authorising the petitioners to re-export H.R. coils to China which were earlier shipped from China to India - Apart from the above suspension of a CHA licence under Regulation 20(2) of the 2004 Regulation can be ordered where immediate action is necessary - In the present case, the customs authorities in the middle of January, 2011 were aware of the fact that the documents submitted by the petitioners were fabricated, however the impugned order has been passed belatedly on 28/3/2011 - Rule is made absolute in the above terms with no order as to costs
-
2011 (4) TMI 185
Seizure - Duty evasion - Demand - There is no need to go into the allegations of the petitioner's Company regarding the happenings in Court on 22.07.2010 or the subsequent detention of Mr.S.Varadharajan by the authorities of the respondents - - The petitioner's Company have to submit their reply to the show cause notices and if any order is passed thereafter, it is open to the petitioner to challenge the same in the manner known to law and it is not open to the petitioner to challenge, the show cause which was issued by a competent person - the allegations of bias cannot be taken into consideration when the action was taken as per the provisions of law for having violated statutory provisions - Writ petitions are dismissed
-
2011 (4) TMI 183
Order of High Court - Assessment orders - The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that it would suffice if the second respondent is directed to dispose of the appeals - However, no recovery proceedings shall be initiated against the petitioner, pursuant to the assessment orders passed by the first respondent - till the disposal of the appeals, as directed by this Court.
-
2011 (4) TMI 181
Confiscation - Penalty - whether the Tribunal below committed any substantial error of law in affirming the order of confiscation - It is the specific case of the appellant that he purchased the Gold biscuits not by himself but through one Narendra Sharma from M/S Rara Brothers Pvt. Ltd and a receipt showing purchase of eight number of gold biscuits was produced - It appears that the said Narendra Sharma, who as an agent of the appellant allegedly purchased eight gold biscuits by cash payment, has not been examined or produced before the Customs Authorities to verify the allegation - Mere production of receipt allegedly given by Narendra Sharma which neither mentioned the name of the appellant nor even of the said Narendra Sharma was no proof of the defence taken and at the same time, the appellant having failed to disclose any material to indicate that the identity of the gold mentioned in the said receipt tallied with seized ones, the learned Tribunal rightly dismissed the appeal - Decided against the assessee
-
2011 (4) TMI 166
Seizure - As the vessel in question was not released, Writ Petition No.10240 of 2010 was filed, wherein an order was passed on 23¬-12 2010 to the effect that the Customs would allow provisional release of the vessel in question - If the vessel is required for the petroleum project, then issuance of the essentiality certificate by DG, Hydrocarbons could not be faulted - DG, Hydrocarbons could not have cancelled the essentiality certificate without hearing the petitioners and without considering the case of the petitioners - The fact that the vessel in question has been used for petroleum operations since last four months is not in dispute - when the vessel is provisionally released, the question of confiscating the vessel under the provisions of the Customs Act, even before adjudication does not arise - Accordingly, the seizure memo dated 7-4-2011 is quashed and set aside and the Customs Authorities are directed to release the vessel forthwith - Decided in favour of the assessee
-
2011 (4) TMI 150
Duty Free Import Authorisation Licencing Scheme - Lactose - Imported goods - the respondents had submitted that the petitioner is not a regular importer and therefore, the bank guarantee to be furnished by the petitioner, in respect of the basic customs duty, has to be enhanced - Hence, the respondent is directed to release the lactose (Pharma Grade) imported by the petitioner, under the Duty Free Import Authorisation Licencing Scheme, without any undue delay, on the petitioner paying 25% of the Basic Customs Duty demanded by the respondents, in cash or by Bank Guarantee, to the satisfaction of the first respondent and on payment of all other dues leviable on the petitioner, by the responents, as per law - Thus, The writ petition is disposed of
-
2011 (4) TMI 142
EPCG Scheme - Refund - It is seen from the facts herein that the assessee imported certain capital goods for the manufacture of Ammonium Nitrate and Nitric Acid - if any duty ordered to be refunded under sub section (2) of Section 27 of the Customs Act is not refunded within a period of three months from the date of receipt of application, interest shall be payable by the Central Government on the refund claim - it is a well settled principle of law that Section does not call for any interpretation - Given the settled principle of law that the Legislature knows the law prevailing at the time when the amendment was brought forth and that the Legislature has chosen to restrict the grant of interest on delayed refunds alone, it is difficult to stretch the language in Section 27A to accept the plea of the assessee that it is entitled to interest on the interest too on the score that Section 27(2) contemplated refund of duty and interest - It must be noted herein that the decision of the Apex Court is based on the interpretation of the word 'any amount' as appearing in Sections 240 and 244(1A) of the Income Tax Act and in the absence of any specific provision on grant of interest on the belated refund of the interest component, it applied the general principles - Decided against the assessee
-
2011 (4) TMI 94
Issuance of licence to import marble blocks - import quota - The firm had submitted different information in the statement of accounts filed with the Income Tax and ROC with difference in turn over as is apparent from a scrutiny of the same - Submitting different figures of turnover on two occasions - Tokan penalty of Rs. 1 Lakh is imposed on the firm - petition deposited the penalty under protest - Held that: The petitioner has been penalised by imposing costs of Rs. 1 lakh for the discrepancy which really has no bearing on the merits of the case - The DGFT was not justified in rejecting the petitioner’s application for issuance of licence - Hence the respondents are directed to grant the licence for import of marble blocks
-
2011 (4) TMI 86
Release of goods - As per the orders passed by this Court in a number of writ petitions, including the order, dated 15.2.2010, made in W.P.No.2301 of 2010 (M/s.Shiv Shanti Exim Pvt. Ltd V. The Commissioner of Customs),when the bank guarantee is furnished, the respondents shall release the goods, forthwith - Hence, the writ petition is ordered accordingly.
-
2011 (4) TMI 71
Exemption from Additional Duty of Customs - The respondents are directed to release the goods concerned, in respect of the Bills of Entry, subject to the condition that the petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee for the entire value of Additional Duty of Customs (CVD), to the satisfaction of the second respondent, which shall be kept alive, till the adjudication process is completed - Held that: when the bank guarantee is furnished, the respondents shall release the goods, forthwith - Hence the writ petition is ordered accordingly.
-
2011 (4) TMI 67
Imposition of Redemption Fine - The appellant imported goods and sought clearance thereof under the provisions of the Act - It was found that the assessee had wrongly declared lesser value of goods and the import was against the import policy - Accordingly, the goods were held to be liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act - It is not disputed that the import by the petitioner was illegal - Once it is so, there is no ground to interfere with the quantum of fine and penalty to be levied - Quantum of fine and penalty depends upon facts and circumstances of a case for which there cannot be any inflexible criteria - The Tribunal having determined the quantum having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case in absence of perversity, it cannot be held that there is any illegality therein - Hence,the appeal is dismissed.
-
2011 (4) TMI 52
Release of detained goods - A Division Bench, in its order, dated 21.10.2009, made in W.A.No.1508 of 2009 (THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS), SEAPORT, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S.POLYCRAFT EXPORTS (P) LTD., AND ANOTHER).orders have been passed in several writ petitions , directing the release of the detained goods, without any modification of the conditions impugned in the earlier order - 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 - After complying the condition, , the respondents are directed to release the goods, in question, forthwith, with liberty to the respondents to proceed further, with the adjudication proceedings, in accordance with law. The petitioner shall co-operate, fully, in the adjudication proceedings to be conducted by the respondents
-
2011 (4) TMI 47
Advance Ruling – Determination of value – Levy of CVD on basis of Transaction value or MRP value - products are marked as "“Not Meant for Retail Sales" - maintainability of advance ruling application - Held that: - As can be observed the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 are so inextricably linked that it is not proper to interpret Section 28H of the Customs Act, 1962 in a narrow sense as has been sought to be done by the Departmental Representative. Value of imported goods for levy of additional duty of custom is again dependent on the value of goods under Section 14 of the Customs Act, 1962. Moreover, it cannot be denied that had the same questions been posed by an applicant in relation to the same goods manufactured and cleared from a factory within the country, these would squarely be within the jurisdiction of the Authority in terms of sub-section (2) of Section 23C of the Central Excise Act, 1944. Declaration of retain sale price - the same goods in some cases may require to bear the declaration as stipulated under Rule 6 (1) (f) of the Packaged Commodities Rules, some other goods of the same class but not intended for retail sale may be exempted from the obligation for a declaration of retail sale price. Consequently the mode of assessment and the incidence of duty would be different in respect of goods identical in shape, size, functions, & packing but declared for a different use. It is likely that at different points of time and having regard to the market conditions, duty leviability may be more if goods are intended for retail sale or vice versa. This places an additional responsibility on the applicant for making a true and correct declaration at the time of import and to ensure that the goods are used for the purpose for which the declaration is made and that there is no diversion from one intended use to another. Calculation of CVD - (i) Products intended for providing certain specialized end to end service - (ii) Products for internal and captive use of the applicant. - (iii) Free samples - (iv) Free replacement under warranty arrangements - Value to be determined as per transaction value. - SAD u/s 3(5) of CTA is applicable on these goods - no exemption form SAD is available. (i) Products intended for sale to Government Departments, large customers etc. and (ii) Products intended for display and demonstration. are liable to be assessed under MRP - These product shall also be exempt from SAD.
-
2011 (4) TMI 45
Release the goods - Directed certain conditions - Pay the entire amount of duty as per the declared value,which may be based on the contract or price etc. - Provide sufficient bank guarantee drawn on any Nationalised bank in respect of 50% of the difference in duty,in favour of the Department - Remaining 50% of the difference in duty, the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond - On completion of all these conditions, the respondents shall release the goods -The respondents shall complete the adjudication process, within a period of four weeks thereafter, by issuing a necessary show cause notice - It is made clear that on the issuing of the necessary show cause notice, the petitioner shall submit its objections, appear before the respondents, through its authorised representatives and cooperate with the Department in the adjudication process."
-
2011 (4) TMI 31
Adjudicating proceedings - Court finds it appropriate to direct the respondent to return to the petitioner the seized documents, which are not relevant for carrying on the adjudication process and the copies of all the documents relied on by the respondent, during the process of adjudication, within fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - The respondent shall follow the principles of natural justice during the process of adjudication, by affording a reasonable opportunity to the petitioner to substantiate the claims made by him - It is also made clear that the petitioner should cooperate, fully, in the adjudication process, which shall be conducted by the respondent, as per the relevant provisions of law, as expeditiously as possible - The writ petition is ordered accordingly - No costs
-
2011 (4) TMI 26
Exemption from Additional Duty of Customs - The respondents are directed to release the goods concerned, in respect of the Bills of Entry, subject to the condition that the petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee for the entire value of Additional Duty of Customs (CVD), to the satisfaction of the second respondent, which shall be kept alive, till the adjudication process is completed - as and when the bank guarantee is furnished, the respondents shall release the goods, forthwith - Hence the writ petition is ordered accordingly.
-
2011 (4) TMI 21
Release of detained goods - A Division Bench, in its order, dated 21.10.2009, made in W.A.No.1508 of 2009 (THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS), SEAPORT, CHENNAI AND ANOTHER Vs. M/S.POLYCRAFT EXPORTS (P) LTD., AND ANOTHER) , orders have been passed in several writ petitions, including the order, dated 2.12.2010, in W.P.Nos.26964 and 27146 of 2010, directing the release of the detained goods, without any modification of the conditions impugned in the earlier orders - Hence, this 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.
-
2011 (4) TMI 13
U/s 130 - Permission to amend their DEEC/DEPB shipping bills into those DEEC/DEPB cum drawback scheme - The claim of the exporter was for Amendment of the shipping bills under Section 149 of the Act - As per proviso of Section 149, no amendment of a shipping bill was to be allowed after the export goods have been exported except on the basis of the documentary evidence, which was in existence at the time the goods were exported - It is thus clear that amendment of shipping bill is not to be allowed in a routine manner after the export goods have been exported - For enabling an exporter to draw the benefits of any scheme, not only physical verification of documents would be required, but as is noted that the verification of the goods of export as also their examination by the Customs was necessarily required to be done – Hence , the Commissioner in rejecting the request of the exporter of conversion/amendment from one scheme to the other after a lapse of more than one year – The appeal is dismissed against the assessee/exporter.
-
2011 (4) TMI 1
Duty drawback - goods had been over-valued with the intention of claiming undue draw-back amounts - instead of first determining the value of the goods on the basis of contemporaneous exports of identical goods, the Revenue erroneously resorted to a market enquiry - contemporaneous exports of identical goods was not available, the procedure laid down in Rules 5 to 8 of the 1988 Rules was required to be followed and market enquiry could be conducted only as a last resort - in the absence of any other independent evidence relating to market enquiry, there was no other corroborating evidence to support the allegation of inflation in FOB value - the matter is remitted back to the adjudicating authority for fresh consideration in accordance with law
|
