|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 21 to 40 of 40 Records
-
2012 (3) TMI 311
Waiver of pre-deposit - the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents had submitted that the petitioner has been directed to pay the penalty, as he had abetted in the irregularities committed by the original assessee - Held that: the original assessee, namely, Visaka Industries Limited, had already paid nearly four and half crores, as pre-deposit for the hearing of the appeal filed by the said assessee - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2012 (3) TMI 310
Clearance of import goods - 104 units of old and used Digital Multifunction Printing and Copying Machines and 10 units of old and used photocopying machines - circular no.42/2001 issued by CBEC, New Delhi, providing for speedy clearance of goods imported - Held that :- while the authorities insisted for proper documentation to clear the consignment, a statement was made by the petitioner before the authorities concerned stating that he was unaware of the import consignment and documents and it is a settled legal position that once a statement is made under Section 108 the petitioner's claim for assessment or provisional assessment cannot be considered - thus the petitioner as a matter of right, cannot claim release of the goods as long as the statement made by him is still in force - mere production of Bill of Entry, Invoice of the goods, packing list and Bill of Lading, will not give any right over the property - the burden is on the petitioner to prove his ownership - Writ Petition stands disposed of
-
2012 (3) TMI 273
Relief - Notification No.17/01-Cus dated 1.3.2001, as amended by Notification No.44/01-Cus, dated 26.4.2001 - Customs authorities had refused to accept the request of the assessee and accordingly, had directed the assessee to pay the duty under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 - It is a settled proposition in a fiscal or taxation law that while ascertaining the scope or expressions used in a particular entry, the opinion of the expert in the field of trade, who deals in those goods, should not be ignored, rather it should be given due importance - In G.P. Ceramics Private Limited v. Commissioner, Trade Tax, Uttar Pradesh, (2009) 2 SCC 90 - Decided in favor of the assessee
-
2012 (3) TMI 272
Waiver of predeposit of duty,interest and penalty and stay of the impugned order -the impugned goods imported namely urea, under the licence issued by the DGFT was required to be taken into the appellants-factory for manufacture of NPK Fertilizer and the same was packed and sold to authorized dealers to be used as manure for agricultural use by the farmers at the consumer price fixed by the Government in accordance with the provisions of Essential Commodities Act - the assessee contented that when the expression used in the notification 11/97, 23/98 and 20/99 is "for use as manure" and the urea has been sold under the Fertilizer Control Order, it has to be assumed that the urea was for use as manure and the exemption has to be allowed, in view of the affidavit filed by the appellants - Held that :- the customs duty exemption states that the same is not linked to the import condition of actual use as the relevant customs notifications provided for no conditions hence, order to waiver of predeposit of the duty and interest amounts during the pendency of the appeal - the appellants have definitely violated the conditions of import license hence the appellants need to predeposit Rs.5,00,000/- towards penalty within four weeks from the date of order and report compliance .
-
2012 (3) TMI 254
Denial of refund claim on grounds not mentioned in the Show Cause Notice – SCN issued for denial of refund claim on ground of non-production of relevant document – Order rejecting refund passed on ground that the shipping bills are not being challenged - Held that:-Whether the appellant was entitled for filing the refund claim or not, is purely a legal issue, which could be examined for the first time at any stage of the proceedings including at the appellate stage, as held in case of National thermal Power Corporation Vs. CIT (1996 - TMI - 5626 - Supreme Court). In our view, both the lower authorities have traveled beyond the allegations made in the SCN hence these orders are not sustainable – Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (3) TMI 253
Determination of nature of the activity - repair and maintenance of an existing asset or industrial and commercial construction – Held that:- Tribunal has already delivered its judgment on liveability of service tax on works contract in cases like Alstom Projects India Ltd. vs. CST, Delhi (2011 - TMI - 206129 - CESTAT, New Delhi), and in Instrumentation Ltd. vs. CCE, Jaipur I (2011 - TMI - 206162 - CESTAT, New Delhi). Therefore the authority shall taking into consideration all the averments of the appellant with evidence before him pass order. Appellant is directed to appear before the Adjudicating Authority within stipulated time – Stay & appeal disposed.
-
2012 (3) TMI 245
Petition filed to seek assessment of Bill of Entry by allowing exemption from CVD under Notification No.30/2004-CE – Held that:- Prayer for assessing the BE by allowing the exemption from CVD under Notification No.30/2004-CE, dated 09.07.2004, cannot be granted. Also, respondent is directed to release the goods concerned subject to furnishing of bank guarantee for the entire value of CVD by petitioner.
-
2012 (3) TMI 205
Import of Gold without deceleration and payment of duty - the petitioner/passenger at the green channel was suspected as trying to clear dutiable goods without declaration and payment of duty - baggage was checked found concealed 10 gold bars with foreign markings wrapped in carbon paper each weighing 10 tolas - Held that:- the petitioner is a Srilankan Passport Holder and is not entitled to bring gold into India - the gold in question was not declared to the Customs on arrival - there was an attempt to smuggle - the petitioner being a foreign national is not entitled to import the gold in terms of the 1993 order as it will apply only to the passenger of Indian origin or a passenger holding a valid passport issued under the Passport Act, 1967.- Writ Petition is dismissed
-
2012 (3) TMI 204
Not following the orders of the higher Appellate authorities -Imported items of the asseess had been taken up for investigation by the Revenue - goods had been detained - Revenue stated that there is a mis-declaration of the cargo - petitioner had been given an option to redeem the goods, on payment of a fine u/s 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, and a sum of Rs.5 lakhs had been imposed on the petitioner and a sum of Rs.1 lakh had been imposed on the deponent within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of the order - petitioner, as well as the deponent filed separate appeals, before the Office of the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) - petitioner furnished a copy of the said order, to the second respondent to release of the imported consignments and to issue the Detention Certificate, for the waiver of rent and demurrage charges,no action had been taken by the respondents petitioner prefer the present writ petition before this Court - Held that :- Department concerned should give effect to the orders of the higher appellate authorities, which are binding on them, by paying utmost regard to judicial discipline, mere fact of the filing of an appeal against such orders and the pendency of such an appeal cannot be shown as a sufficient reason for not following the orders of the higher appellate authorities - respondents are directed to release the goods in question within Ten days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order - open to the petitioner to make a representation to the appropriate authority, with regard to the issuance of a Detention Certificate, for the waiver of the demurrage and detention charges .
-
2012 (3) TMI 200
Whether Section 129(6) of the Customs Act, 1962, which stipulates that on demitting office as Member of the CESTAT a person shall not be entitled to appear before the CESTAT, is ultra vires the Constitution of India - held that:- the provisions of Section 129(6) of the Customs Act and its operation cannot be faulted with. Another half-hearted attempt was made to raise a contention that the appellants can continue to appear before the Tribunal as they are permitted to do so in terms of Section 146A of the Customs Act, despite the provisions of Section 129(6) of the Customs Act. We are unable to find any merit in this contention as well. The provisions of Section 129(6) of the Customs Act are specific and both these provisions have to be construed harmoniously. We find nothing contradictory in these three provisions. Section 146(2)(c) of the Customs Act refers to the appearance by a legal practitioner who is entitled to practice as such in accordance with law. Section 129(6) places a restriction, which is reasonable and valid restriction, as held by us above. Thus, the provisions of Section 146A of the Act would have to be read in conjunction with and harmoniously to Section 129(6) of the Customs Act and the person who earns a disqualification under this provision cannot derive any extra benefit -contrary to Section 129(6) of the Customs Act from the reading of Section 146A of the Customs Act.
-
2012 (3) TMI 184
Plea for reduction in penalty imposed - mis-declaration of the goods imported by assessee – release of 80 % of confiscated goods – Held that:- On undertaking given by assessee that they are not interested in clearing the consignment which is lying with the departmental authorities, we reduce the penalty imposed from Rs.1 lakh to Rs.20,000/- Decided in favor of assessee
-
2012 (3) TMI 172
Writ Appeal- appellant imported some electrical goods - officers of the 1st respondent seized the goods due to undervaluation and issued Ext.P3 show cause notice under Section 124 - appellant sought for interim release of the goods pending completion of the proceedings initiated - The provisional release also came to be ordered subject to conditions as per Ext.P7 - appellant contends that conditions imposed. Held that:- if the matter is kept pending, heavy demurage charges to be incurred by the appellant - 2nd respondent shall complete the proceedings initiated against the appellant by issuing show case notice within three weeks from the date of receipt of the copy of the judgment - the Writ Appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (3) TMI 171
Purchase of the vehicle from a "used car" dealer in Dubai - on inspection damaged chassis number and corrected was noticed and over the engine number in the engine block, a metal plate was fixed covering the original number and with a new number - adjudicating officer confiscated the car and levied penalty - importer filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals)- to set aside the order of confiscation reducing the fine and personal penalty - department as well as importer filed appeals before the Tribunal - Held that :- The information given by the authorized dealer that car is '2004' in India of Toyota Motors, Japan that it is of 2004 make has to be accepted as conclusive - uphold the order of the Commissioner confirmed by the Tribunal to release the vehicle on payment of redemption fine and personal penalty, besides import duty payable at the applicable rate - no reduction in personal penalty and modification of redemption fine 2,00,000/- and 1,50,000/- respectively.
-
2012 (3) TMI 162
Re-import of goods being returned by foreign purchaser as find not suitable for consumption - Port Health Officer conform not upto the standards prescribed by the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act - Petitioner filed writ petition to allow release of goods under Bill of Entry No.4605474 dated 12.9.2011 and to reexamine the goods- Held that :- food item not find suitable by foreign buyers and same confirmed by Port Health Officer - dump the same on unsuspecting public in India cannot be permitted - writ petition is dismissed.
-
2012 (3) TMI 125
Contract of Construction of Roads in India- Notification 21/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002- availing the exemption the importer should have a contract awarded or as a sub contractor for the construction of roads in India either by the Central Government or the State Government or other agencies mentioned in the notification - Appellant had such a contract at the time of importation- the usage of the equipment in the performance of the contract is mandatory - held that:- Exemption cannot be granted as the Appellant has utilized the equipment for construction of roads elsewhere not as a contractor but as a sub-contractor. But even in those cases, they were not named as a sub-contractor - appellant to make a pre-deposit of 50% of the customs duty within eight weeks
-
2012 (3) TMI 112
Undervaluation of goods - Provisional Release of the goods - learned counsel had further prayed that on the petitioner furnishing the bond and on making the payment, as stated above, the third respondent may be directed to release the goods in question, forthwith - Decided in favor of the assessee by way of direction to deposit Rs. 3,00,000, as part of differential duty
-
2012 (3) TMI 94
Revenue effect is too meager - it would be sufficient to keep the questions of law open, if the Revenue wants to agitate the same in an appropriate appeal - Appeal is disposed of
-
2012 (3) TMI 93
Writ petition - misdeclaration of goods - Held that: the respondents are directed to complete the process of investigation, enquiry and adjudication, with regard to misdeclaration of goods, within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order
-
2012 (3) TMI 70
Petitions preferred u/s 482 Cr. P.C. for quashing of the Complaint against petitioners and summoning order – accusation u/s 132, 135 of the Customs Act - allegations against the petitioners are of assisting in availing duty drawback fraudulently by preparing belated Bills of Lading - non-mentioning of date of taking charge of the goods on the Bills of Lading prepared - manipulating the export date on the documents and getting them negotiated in the Bank – Held that:- The department has recorded statements of many witnesses and a search was conducted at the official premises of the accused where various incriminating documents and false seals of various enterprises were found. The material on record prima facie shows involvement of the petitioners in the offence alleged against them. Denying the chance of a trial to the prosecution will be against the spirit of law – Petition dismissed.
-
2012 (3) TMI 42
Contravention of import policy in respect of rough diamond – absolute confiscation of goods held – failure of assessee to furnish Kimberly Process certificate in respect of import of said goods - seeking permission for re-export of goods and waiver of penalty – Held that:- No evidence of wilful attempt by the assessee to contravene the rules is found, therefore there is no reason to impose any penalty. Hence, order of the Commissioner (Appeals) of setting aside the penalty is upheld. Further, Respondent is not making a clear submission as to why he wants the goods to be re-exported. He has not made any payment towards the goods. Thus, permission for re-export of goods is denied and order of the original adjudicating authority for absolute confiscation of the goods is restored – Decided partly in favor of assessee.
|
