|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 33 Records
-
2012 (2) TMI 628
... ...
... ... ..... -controlled incubators’. According to the department, the imported incubators are not servo controlled. The respondent submits that the incubators are used for intensive care only and they bona fidely believe that they are eligible for exemption. Further, the term ‘servo’ denotes automatic start and stop. The imported goods are also ‘automatic incubators’. They also could not produce any other evidence at this stage, as the goods were imported more than 20 years ago. 3. In view of the submissions made, we find no reason to interfere with the conclusions drawn by the lower appellate authority. Consequently, the department’s appeal is dismissed. However, we hasten to add that the respondents are required to pay the applicable duty as per the exemption notifications allowed by the lower appellate authority and the payments already made by them are required to be adjusted against the duty liability. (Dictated and pronounced in open Court)
-
2012 (2) TMI 612
... ...
... ... ..... the goods were allowed for export but redemption fine of ₹ 60,00,000/- was imposed on the appellant and a penalty of ₹ 20,00,000/- on the CHA. Therefore, the appellants are before us. 4. We have heard the contention made by both the sides and perused the records. 5. It is observed by the adjudicating authority that mis-declaration of goods in the shipping bills was not a willful attempt by the appellants, although there is negligence on the part of the appellants/exporter, therefore, no fine and penalty are imposable. However, for the negligence of the appellants a penalty of ₹ 50,000/- is to be imposed on the appellant/exporter. Accordingly, we waive the redemption fine and reduce the penalty on the appellant/exporter namely M/s. Dishman Pharmaceuticals and Chemicals Ltd. to ₹ 50,000/- and also waive the penalty on the CHA M/s. M.D. Ruparel & Sons. Appeals as well as stay applications are disposed of in the above manner. (Dictated in open Court)
-
2012 (2) TMI 607
Detention and seizure of betel nuts - the impugned order was shown to have been made on 07.06.2011 at 18.00 hrs. although the trucks and their drivers were detained on 06.06.2011 itself while the drivers had parked their trucks at the Petrol Pump for taking tea, but the said trucks and drivers were produced before the Magistrate on 09.06.2011 - Held that: - The documents on record clearly show that the petitioner was not only the consignor but also the transporter of articles in question arranging the trucks from Mandies for reaching betel nuts to their destinations, namely to the consignee - this court has no option but to come to the conclusion that the impugned order of detention and seizure of betel nuts and the trucks on which it was loaded are illegal, arbitrary and perverse. Furthermore, the impugned confiscation notice dated 18.11.2011 issued u/s 124 of the Act during the pendency of this writ petition is based merely on the aforesaid seizure, which has already been held to be illegal, arbitrary and perverse and hence when the base, namely the seizure goes every structure thereon including the confiscation notice also will have to follow - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2012 (2) TMI 588
... ...
... ... ..... in this regard. From the above it can be seen that the petitioner has good prima facie case and several arguable issues. Additionally the petitioner had also pressed financial hardship in service. Considering, the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is allowed to deposit 25 of the penalty within a period of four weeks from today upon which the appeal shall be entertained by the Commissioner on merits. There shall be stay till disposal of such appeal. Before closing we may observe that such intervention by the High Court in exercise of writ juridiction could be made only in exceptional case and not as routine manner. We are prompted to do so only in the facts of the present case. Rest of the prayers of the petitioner are not examined in this petition leaving it open for the Appellate Authority to consider the same in accordance with law. Rule is made absolute accordingly. In view of the order passed in the main application Civil Application stands disposed of.
-
2012 (2) TMI 584
... ...
... ... ..... ty and Standards Act, 2006 and the applicable regulations and upon such processing to permit clearance thereof within one month. 3. The petitioner is also entitled to an order of injunction restraining the respondent and each of them, their officers and subordinates from causing any delay or further delay in allowing the petitioner to process the imported consignment under the above Bill of Entry to conform to the standards laid down under the Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006 and the applicable regulations and upon such processing to clear the same on condition that the petitioner would give an undertaking before the respondent that in the event it fails in this Special Civil Application, the petitioner will within seven days of such order deposit before the Revenue authority the amount that would be claimed by the respondent-authority in that behalf. We, accordingly, pass such order. Let the matter come up for final hearing on March 21, 2012. Direct Service is permitted.
-
2012 (2) TMI 577
... ...
... ... ..... ut did not appear before the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority has not exercised his powers in accordance with law to call the witnesses. Therefore, we hold that the impugned proceedings are in violation of the directions given by this Tribunal vide order dated 01/02/2001. 7. In the interest of justice, we are of the opinion that the matter should go back to the adjudicating authority to follow the directions given by this Tribunal on 1st February, 2001 to adjudicate the case and to pass an order in compliance with the direction given by this Tribunal vide order dated 01/02/2001 within 90 days of the receipt of this order with a direction to the appellant that the appellant shall appear before the adjudicating authority as and when called for. 8. The impugned order is set aside in view of the above directions and remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority as directed above. The appeal is disposed of accordingly. (Operative part pronounced in Court)
-
2012 (2) TMI 567
... ...
... ... ..... in any illicit traffic in narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances. We have also found that in view of the facts obtained in this case, the proposed detenu cannot be said to be an abscondee. The circumstances emerging in this case therefore, constrain us to uphold the contention that the order of detention was issued either with a wrong purpose or that it was passed on vague grounds. Certainly, the inordinate delay in execution of Ext.P1, in the circumstances explained above, in the absence of proper explanation and good reasons, is fatal. In such circumstances, the case in hand would fall within the grounds mentioned in Alka Subhash Gardia's case (supra). In view of the aforesaid discussions and findings, we are of the view that we need not go into any other grounds raised by the petitioner. We quash Ext.P1 order dated 27.8.2008 as no useful purpose will be served by keeping Ext.P1/Ext.R1(a) detention order alive any further. The writ petition is accordingly, allowed.
-
2012 (2) TMI 565
... ...
... ... ..... export order in connivance with the officers.Therefore suspension of the licence was warranted. 3. Heard both sides and perused the record. 4. It does not appeal to common sense how a renewed licence made valid on 19/1/2009 can be said to have been suspended. Once the suspension was substituted by renewal soon after three months of the suspension, we do not understand how Revenue acted so carelessly to continue the suspension of licence on record when renewal was ordered. On such reasoning, the suspension order at page 11 is set aside and appeal is allowed. 5. There is nothing before us from Revenue to show us whether any incriminating material exists against the CHA to allow the suspension order to continue. Unless otherwise required, we have no hesitation to say that Revenue administration may follow the law for fresh cause of action, if any. Also we do not say that investigation, if any, against the CHA is obstructed by this order. (Dictated and pronounced in open court.)
-
2012 (2) TMI 541
... ...
... ... ..... 002 would cover Mumbai City District and Mumbai Suburban District both. I am of the view that the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) has jurisdiction over Sahar Air Cargo Complex falling under the jurisdiction of Mumbai Suburban District. 29. In view of the above, I agree with the view expressed by the Hon’ble Member (Technical) Shri P.R. Chandrasekharan. 30. The Registry is directed to place the matter before the Division Bench for further necessary action. (Order pronounced in Court on 10-8-2012) MAJORITY ORDER 31. We are in agreement with the majority decision that the Commissioner of Customs (Prev.) has jurisdiction over Sahar Air Cargo Complex at Sahar Airport and has jurisdiction to issue show cause notice in the instant case and, accordingly, the Registry is directed to list the stay application before the Bench for consideration on merits. (Pronounced in open Court) Sd/- (P.R. Chandrasekharan) Member (Technical) Sd/- (Ashok Jindal) Member (Judicial)
-
2012 (2) TMI 531
... ...
... ... ..... nt. It has been found that there was no investigation regarding the actual payment in respect of the transaction. The Tribunal has also pointed out glaring discrepancy in the document relied upon by the department. The Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has specifically mentioned that the invoice relied upon by the appellant to show the price as 19,000 Euros was not a signed invoice and could not have been relied upon. On that basis, the Commissioner (Appeals) had set aside the order-in-original passed by the adjudicating authority. Infact there was no evidence sustainable in law to initiate proceedings against the importer-respondent. The view taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) has been accepted by the Tribunal and we find no ground to interfere in the same as these are pure findings of fact. It is thus patent that no question of law much less a substantive question of law would arise for adjudication of this Court. Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.
-
2012 (2) TMI 512
... ...
... ... ..... nch on 07.02.2012. According to the Assistant Registrar’s report, there is no compliance. Today there is no evidence, on record, of the amount having been deposited either. There is no representation for the appellant despite notice. The appeal is dismissed for want of compliance with Section 129E of the Customs Act. (Pronounced and dictated in open Court)
-
2012 (2) TMI 499
Refund claim - Interest - Unjust enrichment - Duty paid under protest - dutiability of pan masala - Bar of limitation.
-
2012 (2) TMI 496
Whether failure on the part of the Detaining Authority to consider the representation of the detenu vitiates the entire order?
Whether all the incidents mentioned in the grounds of detention clearly substantiate the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the Detaining Authority as to how the acts of the detenu were prejudicial to the maintenance of public order?
-
2012 (2) TMI 487
... ...
... ... ..... factual and do not merit and require interference. No substantial question of law arises from the aforesaid factual findings. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant, at this stage, submits that the appellant had contested the order in original on merits and not solely on the ground that the appellant was not involved and in fact his father-in- law Sita Ram Aggarwal was the only person involved. The impugned order dated 3rd June, 2011 does not show that the appellant had contested the order in original on merits and other aspects as suggested. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to examine the contentions raised by the learned counsel for the appellant on merits. In case the appellant had urged and pressed the grounds on merits, it will be open to the appellant to file an appropriate application before the tribunal. If any such application is filed, the same will be dealt with in accordance with law. 5. With the aforesaid observation, the appeal is dismissed. No costs.
-
2012 (2) TMI 486
... ...
... ... ..... onsideration of the facts and circumstances of the case, rejected the claim made by the writ petitioner. Aggrieved by the said order, the present writ appeal has been filed. 4. Heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Senior Central Government Standing Counsel appearing for respondents. 5. On going through the entire materials placed on record, we see no reason to entertain the writ appeal on the ground that the learned single Judge, after hearing the learned counsel on either side and on consideration of the facts and circumstances of the case and also the authorities relied on by both the parties, has given his extensive consideration in the matter, especially in paragraph Nos. 12, 13 and 14 with regard to the relief to be granted by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In view of the above, the writ appeal fails and the same is dismissed. Connected M.Ps. are closed. However, there will be no order as to-costs.
-
2012 (2) TMI 484
... ...
... ... ..... representative should pass the examination within two years. Counsel submitted that an employee of the appellant wrote the examination several times but failed. However, the appellant got three years and 8 months’ time for the employee to get qualified in the examination. The appellant’s employee repeatedly failed in the examination which led to cancellation of license and declining another temporary license. Even though a person said to be qualified was appointed it was done only after 19-2-2007 which was merely after cancellation of temporary license on 15-2-2007. We do not find any merit in this appeal, consequently the same is dismissed.
-
2012 (2) TMI 477
... ...
... ... ..... rly, personal penalty was reduced from ₹ 5 lakhs to ₹ 2 lakhs i.e. 40 of the original levy. On facts it is seen that the vehicle imported is a 6000 CC Hummer vehicle which is used by the richest of the rich and the appellant is not the user but only an agent for sale after import to make profit. We therefore, do not find any ground to further reduce the redemption fine and penalty beyond what is granted by the Tribunal, which in our view is very liberal order in favour of the appellant. No question of law also arises for considered by this Court. This appeal is accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (2) TMI 399
Petition filed for assessment of Bill of Entry by allowing exemption from Additional Duty of Customs (CVD), under Notification No.30/2004-CE, dated 09.07.2004, and to allow the clearance of the goods – Held that:- Prayer for assessing the Bill of Entry by allowing the exemption from Additional Duty of Customs (CVD), under Notification No.30/2004-CE, dated 9.7.2004, cannot be granted. However, respondents are directed to release the goods concerned, in respect of the above said Bill of Entry, subject to the condition that the petitioner furnishes a bank guarantee for the entire value of CVD. Release of the goods in question shall be subject to the orders to be passed by the Division Bench of this Court.
-
2012 (2) TMI 377
Petition sought for directing the respondent to furnish backup copies of the data contained in a Laptop/hard discs seized during search conducted, enabling petitioner to file replies – Held that:- Since prayer of the petitioner is now agreed upon by the respondents. Therefore, this Writ Petition stands disposed of with a direction to the respondents to furnish the documents within stipulated time.
-
2012 (2) TMI 360
Goods Imported - Provisional release - Held That:- Respondent shall complete the proceedings pursuant to the show cause notice issued to the petitioner, expeditiously. The same shall be done within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this judgment. The writ petition is disposed of as above.
|
