Home Case Index All Cases Customs 2012 2012 2012 (2) Customs - 2012 (2) This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Customs - Case Laws

Showing 21 to 33 of 33 Records

• 2012 (2) TMI 359
  

  Re-export of goods – petition filed by foreign exporter to seek permission for re-shipment of goods exported by it to India - importer abandons the goods – Held that:- Since, Petitioner has the right to request such permission and importer does not have any objection for the re-export of the goods in question, the respondents are directed to consider the request of re-export of the goods in question unless there are other legal impediments, for granting such permission.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 313
  

  Whether "aluminium grills" can be termed as "Extruded aluminium products" and assessee can take the benefit of the Item 7 of Code 61 - Held that:- The expression "including pipes and tubes" following the words "extruded aluminium products" in Item 7 is restrictive in nature and will give 'extruded aluminium products' a restrictive meaning in order to include the standardized products such as pipes and tubes within the meaning of the term extruded aluminium products.

  Further, in various earlier decisions it is held that word "includes" may in certain contexts be a word of limitation and used in the sense of 'means'. In view of the aforesaid reasons, aluminium grills cannot fit into Item 7 of the Product Code 61 of the DEPB Schedule in order to claim benefit of the DEPB Scheme and therefore, we cannot sustain the order passed by the Tribunal – Decided in favor of Revenue.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 292
  

  Valuation adopted by first appellate authority under Customs Valuation (DPIG) Rules, 2007 – Revenue contesting such valuation – Held that:- When the authority examined the issue under touch stone of Valuation Rules to come to conclusion, we do not propose to interfere with the order – Decided against the Revenue.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 267
  

  Goods detained on alleged mis-declaration in the description of the goods - Revenue contends goods imported was machine declared as heavy melting scrap – appellate authority held that detained goods can be released upon mutilation rendering it as scrap and clearance upon payment of duty as scrap - Held that:-There is no evidence to controvert averment of appellant about life and condition of goods. Neither revenue had any material to prove that the goods imported was not 20 50 years nor proved that the same is usable for more than the period certified by Chartered Engineers without major repair and renovation and also looking to lapse of 18 months from the import. Accordingly there is no scope to reverse the first appeal order – Appeal of Revenue dismissed.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 242
  

  Classification of 'Electronic Automatic Regulators' - Revenue classified it under Chapter sub-heading 8543.89 – Central Government vide Notification dated 01.03.2002 classified it under Chapter sub-heading 9032.89 - Held that:- For the period after 01.03.2002, in view of the Notification issued by the Central Government, the goods, namely Electronic Automatic Regulators would fall under Chapter sub-heading 9032.89 – Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 222
  

  Revision petition filed u/s 397 r/w 401 of the CrPC against order of discharge u/s 245CrPC - smuggling of ball bearing - respondents challenging maintainability of the present revision petition – validity of the sanction and also non-examination of the sanctioning authority - Held that:- The petitioner had the concurrent option of filing revision before the Sessions Court or this Court hence, present revision petition is certainly maintainable.

  Validity of sanction - The sanction order fully sets out the material facts and the offences disclosed by those facts. Moreover, Officer signing the sanction order is not required to state that he had personally scrutinized the file and had arrived at the required satisfaction.

  The non-availability or non-association of independent witness cannot be a ground for discharge or acquittal in all cases. Therefore, petition is allowed and the impugned order is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the court of learned ACMM, New Delhi.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 220
  

  Ocean going vessels – seizure for not filing B/E for home consumption - provisional release of vessels ordered subject to conditions including condition of payment of duty – vessels imported prior to 2001 – exemption from custom duty on the date of initial import – assessee contesting payment of duty – Held that:- Revenue is not justified in demanding the duty for provisional release of the vessels when, prima facie, it is not in dispute that on the date of initial import of these ocean going vessels, there was total exemption from payment of duty and customs authorities were also under the belief that it is not necessary to file B/E, where there is total exemption.

  Since the issue is yet to be adjudicated hence petitioner is directed to file B/E for home clearance of each of the vessels in question without payment of any duty and other conditions as stipulated in order for provisional release. No opinion is expressed on merits of the case.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 198
  

  Acquittal of charge u/s 135(1) (a) of the Customs Act, 1962 – CLP filed u/s 378(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 seeking special leave to appeal against the said judgment – seizure of gold biscuits – Held that:- In present case, adjudicating authority as also the appellate authority both found the respondent guilty on merits but the revisional authority exenorated him on account of benefit of doubt. Further, there is no retraction of statement u/s 108 of the Customs Act by the aforesaid 3 witnesses and retraction of statement of accused/respondent is highly belated.

  Therefore, the case requires full consideration and re-appreciation of entire prosecution case. Consequently, leave is granted to the petitioner/department for filing an appeal against the impugned order of acquittal.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 146
  

  Interest on the refund amount of pre-deposit and sale proceeds of confiscated goods – order for absolute confiscation of gold bars on 22.05.98 – Commissioner (Customs) vide order dated 11.12.01 permitted for release of 21 gold biscuits in de-novo proceedings – gold bars being sold by Department on 09.03.01 – Held that:- In view of decision in case of Miles India Ltd. Vs ACC (1984 - TMI - 41925 - Supreme Court Of India) holding that the authorities created by a statute are governed by the provisions of statute, it is laid down that in as much as there is no provision regarding payment of interest in respect of sale proceeds of confiscated goods, the same cannot be ordered.

  Since Commissioner has not given any finding regarding interest on refund of pre-deposit, matter is remanded back to the Appellate Authority – Decided partly in favor of Revenue.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 138
  

  Appeal for release of consignment – Non-presence of CESTAT, Chennai during proceedings – plea for transfer of appeal to co-ordinate Bench of CESTAT, Karnatka - Held that:- Petitioner may be permitted to make an application, before the third respondent, requesting him to pass an administrative order transferring the matter from the CESTAT, South Zonal Bench, Chennai, to its co-ordinate bench sitting at Bangalore, within a specified time, as per law.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 79
  

  Confiscation and Redemption fine - Held That:- Petitioner shall pay 30% of the differential duty, and for the balance amount, the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond - Respondent to release the goods - Petitioner shall co-operate fully.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 39
  

  Plea for release of confiscated goods – import of Oats – goods confiscated due to the objections raised by the Port Health Officer and that goods have been misbranded - CESTAT vide order dated 27.10.11 directed for release of goods on fulfillment of certain conditions by assessee – release pending - Held that:- Since Revenue has not challenged the order of CESTAT hence with the conditions attached in the order, it is directed to implement the order of CESTAT within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.

  Petitioner would have to comply with a number of conditions like providing details to comply with the local laws, at the time of the re-packing and the re-labeling of the said goods, in the customs bonded area, and goods to be subjected to necessary tests to make sure that the goods in question are fit for human consumption, before release of goods – Decided in favor of petitioner.

  ---

• 2012 (2) TMI 12
  

  Classification of super concentrate, a constituent of the antifreeze coolants – assessee submitting super concentrate will fall classification under heading 3824 90 90 – residuary entry – imported product cannot itself be used as anti-freeze coolant - addition of MEG and others is also necessary to reach the desired concentration - Held that:-Rule 2(a) of the General Rules for Interpretation cannot apply to these goods, since it refers to articles presented unassembled or disassembled. Rule 2(b) refers to mixtures and combinations of materials and substances. The rule further states that the classification of goods consisting of more than one material or substance shall be according to the principles of rule 3. To apply this rule, therefore, one has to first see whether the goods in question, prima facie, fall for classification under two or more headings. Therefore, on the basis of meaning of the word “preparations” and the inapplicability of rule 2(a), their classification under heading 3820 00 00 is ruled out. The goods are undeniably products of chemical industry. Consequently, their classification will have to be under the residuary entry of chapter 38 of the tariff i.e. Heading 3824 90 90 – Decided in favor of assessee.

  ---

12