|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 77 Records
-
2013 (4) TMI 966
... ...
... ... ..... ed that this is not a fit case for invocation of our jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India. Civil Appeals are dismissed. No order as to costs.
-
2013 (4) TMI 942
... ...
... ... ..... rmitted. Connect with Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 5547 of 2013 titled ‘Union of India & Ors. v. Jatin Ahuja’.
-
2013 (4) TMI 874
... ...
... ... ..... r clubbing of advance licences. He further submits that by letter dt.20.5.2011, they have communicated the said letter to the Commissioner of Customs. We find that by letter dated 19.5.2011, the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade informed that the export obligation against advance licences have been clubbed as per para 4.20.3 of Hand Book Policy 2009-14 and regularized in terms of Para 4.28 of Hand Book (Vol.I) 2009-14. The matter is required to be examined in the light of the letter of DGFT. It is appropriate that the matter is to be remitted to the original authority to decide afresh in light of letter dt. 19.5.11 of JDFT. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and the matter is remanded back to the Commissioner of Customs for de novo adjudication in accordance with law. The adjudicating authority shall give opportunity of hearing to them before decision. Appeal is allowed by way of remand. Stay application is disposed of. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
-
2013 (4) TMI 851
... ...
... ... ..... 08 CUSTOMS ACT, 1962 Sir, I Lokesh Garg S/o Sh. Naresh Garg R/o E-1065, Saraswati Vihar, Delhi-110034 was forcibly picked up by Customs Official from residence of my brother in law in the night of 8/9 March, 2010 and was brought at ICD, TKD, New Delhi. I was kept in their Custody and summon was issued to me there only. I was intimidated coerced to make false and involuntary statement which has dictated to me and same are contrary to the documents and record. I therefore retract my statement dated 9th March 2010 as being involuntary and pray that same may kindly be not used against me. Sd/- (Thumb Impression) 11.03.2010 LOKESH GARG JAIL NO.4” 23. In view of the aforesaid legal position, we allow the present petition. Writ of Habeas corpus is issued quashing the detention order dated 27th August, 2010 and the confirmation order dated 18th February, 2013. Lokesh Garg will be released forthwith unless required to be detained in accordance with law, in any other case/order.
-
2013 (4) TMI 848
... ...
... ... ..... me offence, it would be a salutary principle for administration of criminal justice to suggest that the said legislative benevolence can be extended to the accused who awaits judicial verdict regarding sentence.” 5. When confronted with the aforequoted legal position, Mr. Manoranjan Kumar, Advocate for Mr. G.S. Kanojia, Advocate for respondent could not distinguish T. Barai (supra), which has been consistently followed, nor could cite any decision to the contrary. 6. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case, the substantive sentence awarded to petitioner is reduced to the period already undergone by him while enhancing the fine from ₹ 10,000/- to ₹ 25,000/- to be deposited with the Trial Court within four weeks, failing which petitioner shall undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three months. Trial Court be forthwith apprised of this order to ensure its compliance. 7. With aforesaid directions, this petition is disposed of.
-
2013 (4) TMI 839
Application for early hearing - restoration of licence - statutory remedy as provided under Regulation 14 (2) - Held that: - this Court finds it fit and proper to relegate the petitioner to avail the remedy as above. Accordingly, the petitioner is set at liberty to file a proper representation under Regulation 14(2) before the 2nd respondent within two weeks, upon which the same shall be considered and a decision shall be rendered after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner at the earliest, at any rate, within 'one month' from the date of receipt of the representation - petition allowed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 836
... ...
... ... ..... udicating Authority for serving show cause notice and thereafter complying with the principles of natural justice by granting an opportunity of hearing to the respondent/assessee. 6. We are informed by the learned counsel for the appellant that on remand, the Adjudicating Authority is seized of the matter and an opportunity of personal hearing was also granted. That being the position, we refrain from interfering with the impugned order dated 17-4-2012 inasmuch as the matter shall be considered on merits by the Adjudicating Authority as per the directions of the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the appellant pointed out that actually the show cause notice had been served on the respondent/assessee and that this fact could not be pointed out before the Tribunal. However, we feel that this aspect of the matter has also gone into by the Adjudicating Authority. 8. At present, no substantial question of law arises for our consideration. The appeal is dismissed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 835
... ...
... ... ..... also the prima facie consideration made by the Tribunal in Exhibit P4, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the said order. However, this Court deems it fit that the petitioner is granted a further period of one month from today to make the pre-deposit as directed in Exhibit P4 order. The writ petition is disposed of as above.
-
2013 (4) TMI 813
... ...
... ... ..... for the petitioner. Rule returnable on 17th April, 201 3. Ms. Rujuta R. Oza, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent nos.2 to 4. Mr. Hriday Buch, learned advocate waives service of notice of rule on behalf of respondent no.1- Union of India.
-
2013 (4) TMI 812
... ...
... ... ..... ecorded wherein he produced the authorization from the firm to work on behalf of and sign all the documents for the firm. He has filed settlement application and prayed for provisional release in that capacity. In view of these facts, the Revenue objection is not proper. Revenue to comply with the Bench direction for provisional release of the goods without any further delay.” 3. In view of the fact that the objection i.e. sought to be raised by the petitioner has already been considered by the Settlement Commission, we see no reason to interfere with the order passed by the said Commission, which is seized with the settlement application. The Settlement Commission is empowered under Section 127F with all the powers of an Officer of Customs under the said Act. The said provisional release order has been made in exercise of that power. 4. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. 5. Dasti under the signature of the Court Master.
-
2013 (4) TMI 811
... ...
... ... ..... llant is that they have aided and abetted wrong claiming of drawback. The department has taken more than four years to investigate the matter and, thereafter, the show cause notice has been issued to the appellant in November, 2012 for imposition of penalty under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962 for aiding and abetting wrong claim for drawback. Thus, considerable time has lapsed between the filing of shipping bills and the issue of suspension order. In these circumstances, respectfully following the decision of the hon’ble High Court of Bombay in the case of National Shipping Agency, cited supra, we are of the view that there is no emergency which requires the licence to be suspended. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and revoke the suspension order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. The Customs authorities are at liberty to expedite the enquiry initiated against the appellant-CHA and take appropriate action in accordance with law. (Dictated in Court)
-
2013 (4) TMI 810
... ...
... ... ..... made during the period from 17-3-2012 to 28-2-2013. 14. In all the matters where the goods were detained under Section 110 of the Customs Act, the further enquiry is yet to be held and if it is ultimately found that the coal imported is Bituminous coal, the petitioners are liable to pay the Customs duty at 11 . Therefore, it is not in public interest to grant any interim order permitting the petitioners to lift the imported consignment merely on the ground that the consignment was provisionally assessed. 15. However, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to permit the petitioners to lift the stock in question on payment of differential duty. Accordingly, there shall be a direction to the respondents to release the detained consignment and permit the petitioners to lift the same subject to the condition of payment of differential duty in respect of the stock so detained. 16. All these WPMPs are accordingly disposed of.
-
2013 (4) TMI 807
... ...
... ... ..... & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), is made now within four weeks from today, the CESTAT will treat the delay in compliance as condoned and proceed with the hearing of the appeal on merits. In case, no compliance is made, the appeal before CESTAT shall stand dismissed.
-
2013 (4) TMI 775
... ...
... ... ..... mporter for the part of its advertising expenses, such payments only reduces his net expenses for advertising which is not a dutiable item in the first place. If the charge is not based on the number of units of the products imported, such a cost sharing arrangements cannot be regarded as an indirect payment constituting an additional element of the price paid by the importer to the exporter. In the present case, we find that there is no nexus between the imports made by the appellants and the expenditure shared by the appellants for the global advertising campaign. We also find that the sharing of cost towards advertising expenses is not a condition of sale for the import of goods. Therefore, we are of the view that the provisions of Section 10(1)(e) of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, are not attracted in the present case. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order and allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any. (Operative part of the order pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (4) TMI 773
Waiver and stay of demand - Penalty - Notification No. 196/94-Cus dated 08.12.1994 - Held that: - the assessee is not claiming prima facie case against the demand of Central Excise duty. For the reasons already stated, their claim of prima facie case against the demand of Customs duty remains unsubstantiated and their plea of financial hardships is also unacceptable. In the result, there will be a direction to the appellant to pre-deposit the entire demand of Customs duty plus Central Excise duty (less ₹ 1 lakh already deposited) within six weeks and report compliance to the Deputy Registrar on 15.7.2013.
In the event of due compliance, there will be waiver and stay in respect of the penalties imposed on the appellant and interest on duty.
-
2013 (4) TMI 742
the Additional Chief Metropolitan Magistrate has no jurisdiction to take possession unless authorized by the High Court to have all or any of the powers of a Chief Metropolitan Magistrate under the Criminal Procedure Code or under any other law for the time being in force.
-
2013 (4) TMI 718
... ...
... ... ..... Customs Act. If that be so, it is not clear under what powers the customs authorities have initiated the present proceedings, especially when the car was confiscated and allowed to be redeemed at the time of importation. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Meakin case cited supra held that a subsequent purchaser is not to be saddled with the liability of undervaluation if the adjudicating authority failed to make proper enquiry and released the same after half-hearted adjudication. There is also no evidence on record to show that the appellant herein was in any way connected with the import of the car or aided/abetted in undervaluation of the car. Thus we are of the prima facie view that the appellant has made out a strong case in his favour for grant of stay. Accordingly we grant unconditional waiver from pre-deposit of the dues adjudged against the appellant and stay recovery thereof during the pendency of the appeal. (Operative part pronounced in the Court)
-
2013 (4) TMI 717
... ...
... ... ..... mbai, dated 13th February, 2013 (Exhibit ‘A’) on the ground that it was passed in violation of the principles of natural justice. We clarify that we have had no occasion to deal with the allegations contained in the show cause notice. Since the order has been set aside only on the ground noted above, we grant liberty to the Adjudicating Authority to pass a fresh order of adjudication and while doing so, we keep open all the rights and contentions of the parties. The Petitioners shall appear before the Adjudicating Authority on 6th May, 2013. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Petitioners states that in the meantime, the Petitioners intend to move the Settlement Commission for resolving the entire issue in dispute. We make no observation in that regard save and except to clarify that it would be open to the Petitioners to take recourse to such remedies as are available in law. 6. The Petition is disposed of in these terms. There shall be no order as to costs.
-
2013 (4) TMI 716
... ...
... ... ..... are allowed to be cleared on payment of duty, the rate of duty that shall apply is the rate in force on the date of payment of such duty as specified in para 2(a) of Notification 126/94, dated 3-6-1994 and para 6(a) of Notification No. 1/95, dated 4-1-1995. Therefore, the duty liability has to be computed at the rates prevalent on 7-6-2006 when the debonding was permitted, on the depreciated value from the date of commercial production to 7-6-2006, the date of debonding. Interest also leviable on the amounts of duty from the due date till the date of payment of duty. 5.2 As regards the reduced quantum of penalty, this point has not been agitated before the lower authorities. Therefore, request will have to be considered by the adjudicating authority, who has to recompute the duty demand as discussed above, in accordance with law. 6. With these directions the appeals are disposed of. The stay applications also stand disposed of. (Operative part pronounced in Court)
-
2013 (4) TMI 714
... ...
... ... ..... d supra held that the appellants are liable to discharge CVD liability on the MRP price under Section 4A of the Central Excise Act, 1944, notwithstanding the fact that the imported goods are re-packed into kits and sold thereafter. The Revenue was a party to the said decision. If that be so, the decision of the Advance Ruling Authority is binding on the Revenue under Section 28J of the Customs Act. Therefore, if CVD liability is discharged on the basis of the MRP, which implies that the goods are intended for retail sale, the benefit of Notification No. 29/2010 cannot be denied to the appellant on the ground that the goods are being subjected to re-packing and re-labelling before they are sold in retail. The decisions of this Tribunal in the case of Vijirom Chem. Pvt. Ltd. case and the Daikin Airconditioning India Pvt. Ltd. cited supra also support this view. Accordingly, we allow the appeal with consequential relief, if any. (Operative part of the order pronounced in Court)
|
