|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 154 Records
-
2014 (12) TMI 1393
Smuggling - Gold - petitioners case is that they are only a bailee under the bailment for doing the work - customs authorities can withhold the gold or not - HELD THAT:- The primary authority is to decide whether this gold articles are liable to be released to the petitioners is the authority under the Customs Act. If the gold articles brought by the petitioners are clearly identifiable and it is only for the purpose of job work, authority will not have any difficulty in releasing it. However, that has to be satisfied by the officer attached to the 4th respondent. Petitioners therefore shall make an application to release the good with documents and other relevant materials in terms of Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962. If petitioners make an application, that application shall be considered within a period of ten days from the receipt of such application.
Petition disposed off.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1377
Importing drug Benfotiamine - allowing the importer to use the provision of Rule 43 of the Rules there is a possibility of spurious drugs being circulated to the human use which will be neither allowable nor permissible - HELD THAT:- Admittedly the goods have since been cleared. Under the circumstances, we find no reason to interfere with impugned judgment/order passed by the High Court.
SLP dismissed.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1358
Condonation of procedural lapse of supplying goods to SEZ only under ARE-1 without Bills of Exports - advance authorization scheme - deemed exports - According to the petitioner, the products supplied to the SEZ would qualify as exports and would discharge the petitioner from its export obligations against the Advance Authorizations - HELD THAT:- The petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a fresh representation alongwith all documents relied upon by the petitioner within a period of two weeks from today. It is directed that if such representation is made, the DGFT shall consider and dispose of the same within a period of eight weeks after affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1313
Remand of matter to the Commissioner (Appeals) - Held that: - On remand, the Commissioner (Appeals) passed an order in favor of the Department. Hence, the matter may be dismissed as withdrawn. He has produced an affidavit dated nil March, 2011 by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Legal Section (Air), Air Cargo Complex, Chennai in which it is stated that this Civil Miscellaneous application my be permitted to be withdrawn.
Appeal dismissed as withdrawn.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1296
Penalties - confiscation - software component of diamond scanning machine - The Customs authority holds a belief that such software would form part of the imported goods and therefore, would invite customs duty along with the hardware - service tax with interest already paid - Held that: - where the same import of software has been held by one wing of the department as providing of service and also levied service tax on the same, continued attachment by the customs department on the premise that the same was liable to confiscation on the ground of misdeclaration of valuation of the imported goods for the purpose of customs duty, would not be permissible - the petitioner does not dispute its service tax liability and has accepted the principal component of tax without appeal - petition allowed.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1284
Jurisdiction of Settlement Commission - Customs duty – Mis-declaration - Smuggling and Confiscation of Gold & Coins in India - Scope of Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962 u/s 124 - Penalty u/s 112 and 114AA of Act – the decision in the case of Komal Jain Versus Union of India And Another [2014 (4) TMI 907 - DELHI HIGH COURT], contested, where it was held that There was no mandate to limit the jurisdiction of the Settlement Commission in such a manner, Providing an unduly narrow interpretation to Section 127B to nip its jurisdiction at the bud does not cohere with the text or context of the provision - appeal dismissed.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1278
Forfeiture of security deposit - the case of petitioner is that the petitioner was being saddled with consequence of forfeiting part of its security amount on account of not lifting the auction lot within the prescribed period even when the similar facilities in past were given to many of the auction purchasers by the Customs Department - Held that: - the Customs Department must maintain a uniform yardstick. Actually, here the petitioner has been saddled, with an adverse consequence of forfeiture of ₹ 2,65,000/- only because he could not deposit the auction amount within a period of 15 days but in the similar cases in past, about which full details has been given by the petitioner in the supplementary affidavit, they were allowed to lift the auctioned lot even after expiry of the period fixed for depositing the full amount of auction - the interest of revenue cannot be bigger than the principle of observance of the rules but then in commercial law even the Government is supposed to take the interest of revenue into prime consideration - the petitioner will be entitled to lift the entire lot on complete payment of ₹ 11,74,920/- - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1270
Betel nuts - seizure - whether the goods are indigenous or imported? - whether the goods can be released when the matter has not attained finality? - Held that: - After seizure u/s 110 of the said Act, the goods may be released to the owner, pending adjudication, upon taking a bond from him or her in a proper form - It would be better for the respondent authorities to take security from the writ petitioner in accordance with the regulations, read with the said circular - Department will be free to determine the security to be furnished by the petitioner to cover duty redemption fine etc., but the same should not exceed 25% of the value of the goods - application disposed off - decided partly in favor of applicant.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1268
Pre-deposit - Section 129C of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that: - since there is a default in pre-deposit as directed by the order dated 8.9.14, the appeal is dismissed for failure of pre-deposit in terms of Section 129C of the Customs Act, 1962.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1260
Classification of the product - Pediasure - classified under CTH 21.06 as “food preparation not elsewhere specified or included” or CTH 1901 as “Preparations of Malt extract" - Held that: - the main ingredients in terms of weight are sugar 35.01%; carbohydrates 50.21% and the balance other ingredients and various proteins. Therefore there is merit in the contention of the appellant that product cannot fall under CTH 1901 at all and classification under CTH 2106 as not elsewhere specified or included appears to be merited. We further notice that in respect of the import of the same product subsequently, the department has classified the goods under CTH 21.06. Since this point has not been considered by the lower authorities, the matter should go back to original authority for fresh consideration. Therefore, we remand the matter back to the adjudicating authority for de novo consideration to consider the specific claim of the appellant that appropriate classification of the impugned goods is CTH 2106 - the appeal allowed by the way of remand.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1257
Prohibited goods - redemption of confiscated goods - import of Car Radial Tyres - the decision in the case of Commissioner, Customs And Central Excise And Another Versus M/s. Aban Exim Pvt. Ltd. [2014 (8) TMI 696 - ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT] referred - Held that: - no merit found in Civil Appeal - the Civil Appeal is dismissed.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1248
Levy of penalty for aid and abetment in duty evasion - It is the case of the Revenue that most of the MOP available in India is imported into India for industrial use and the appellants aided and abetted in the export of such MOP after importation by mis-declaring the same as Feldspar Powder, Industrial Salt etc. - Held that:- Looking to the extent of manipulations and scale of transactions, prima-facie, we do not find that all the appellants have made out a case for complete waiver of penalties and are required to be put to certain conditions. - all the appellants should deposit an amount equivalent to 1 % (One per cent) of the total penalties imposed upon each appellant under Section 114(i) and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962 within eight weeks from the date of receipt of this order and report compliance to the Deputy Registrar by 04.02.2015. - stay granted partly.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1240
Smuggling of wrist watches, micro SD cards, button cell etc. - Mis-declaration of description and value - Rejection of declared value - Confiscation in lieu of redemption fine and imposition of penalty - Appellant contended that post import was not covered under the section 111(l) & (m) of the Customs Act - Held that:- a gross mis-declaration was found when goods were smuggled at foreign post office from kowloon, Hongkong. Documents filed were not signed. Items declared were Wrist watches, items actually found was Micro SD Cards, Button Cell, watches straps, Sony Electric Part CCTV. Values were grossly under declared. All these goods were smuggled in the guise of postal import. It is settled law that fraud nullifier every things as held by Honble Supreme Court in the case of M/s Canded Enterprises. No relief on technical ground could be claimed once smuggling has clearly been manifested and admitted. Commissioner (Appeals) has already taken liberal view and has reduced redemption fine and penalty. Therefore, no interference in the order passed by Commissioner is warranted. - Decided against the appellant
-
2014 (12) TMI 1230
Imposition of penalties u/s 112(a) & 114AA and fine u/s 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Confiscation of seized goods u/s 111 ibid - Import of second hand car by declaring as new - Held that:- car is liable to confiscation u/s 111(d) and 111(m) ibid. Appellant admitted making a payment of ₹ 7 lakhs by cash to the said supplier of the vehicle, over and above the recorded amounts involved in importing the vehicle and that out of this amount only an amount of ₹ 1 lakh was related to post-import activities. He also admitted that he had to make payment of the remaining amount of ₹ 6 lakhs without knowing the purpose for such payment. Such undocumented payment, made underhand in cash, does not appear to be bona fide expenditure towards import of the car and accordingly, for these reasons, the submissions by the applicant, that he had no knowledge that it was a used car cannot be accepted. The applicant, thus, does not deserve full immunity from penalty and fine.
Also the applicant has admitted the amount of duty demanded in the SCN and cooperated with the Commission during the settlement proceedings. The entire amount of the admitted duty liability has also been paid by the applicant and he has also deposited the interest demanded thereon. The Revenue has not disputed the interest amount as worked out and paid by the applicant. Therefore, the Bench settles the case under Section 127C of the Act. The above immunities from penalty and prosecution to the applicant are granted under sub-section (l) of Section 127H of the Act subject to the provisions contained in sub-sections (2) and (3) of Section 127H ibid. The immunities are granted only to the applicant who has approached the Settlement Commission.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1228
Demand of duty, interest and penalty - Export of Ferro Silicon - Obtained 54 DEPB licences by wilful misstatement and suppression of country of origin and availed export incentive on export of Bhutanese origin, therefore, no DEPB benefit to be available - DEPB licences were sold by the exporter and were utilized by the purchasers for payment of duty on goods imported by them.
Held that:- Out of total duty demanded ₹ 3,20,46,327/-, only a sum of ₹ 25,10,066/- has been demanded from the applicant and the balance from other importers. None of these importers have approached the Settlement Commission. As per sub-section (1) of Section 127B of the Customs Act, 1962, "Any importer, exporter or any other person may, in respect of a case, relating to him make an application before adjudication to the Settlement Commission to have the case settled". Further, an order of settlement under Section 127C(8) has to provide for the terms of settlement including any demand by way of duty, penalty and interest. In the present case, Bench is unable to settle these terms as none of the persons from whom a major portion of duty has been demanded in the SCN have approached the Settlement Commission and some of them do not even fall in the jurisdiction of this Bench. Therefore, in the absence of the same, the application to settle the duty demanded from those other importers by the applicant cannot be entertained. - Application rejected
-
2014 (12) TMI 1219
Seeking permission for withdrawal of petition - Pre-deposit of amount for entertainment of appeal - Furnishing of bank guarantee for 25% - in the event the appellants succeed in the pending appeal then the Bank Guarantee shall be returned. But if the order goes against the appellants then the amount of the Bank Guarantee shall be appropriated. Even if the appellants prefer further appeal, they shall not object to invocation of the Bank Guarantee. So, for determining the amount of Bank Guarantee, adjustment shall be made of the amount already deposited. - Apex court dismissed the writ petitions as withdrawn and appeal disposed of
-
2014 (12) TMI 1208
Import of Fresh Frozen Green Peas - The Plant and Quarantine department advised the Customs department vide letter dated 16-11-2009 to deport back to the supplies or destroy the goods as there is bio-security risk. - The adjudicating authority allowed the redemption of the goods for re-export only on payment of fine - Held that:- The appellant cannot be held guilty. In view of my above discussions - since the final test as regard Pest Risk Analysis was not carried out, the reliance can be placed on other documents such as Phytosanitary Certificate, report of Public Health Department of Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai and also certificate of Quarantine given by the supplier by which it can be ascertained that the product in question is free from pest, insect and fungal infection. - Impugned order set aside - Decided in favor of appellant.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1207
Refund - customs duty (CVD) was paid without claiming the benefit of exemption notification - Import of Indigo Vat Blue falling under CTH 3204 15 59 - Notification No. 12/2012-C.E - Held that:- The judgment of Apex Court in the case of Priya Blue Industries Ltd. [2004 (9) TMI 105 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] is in context of old Section 27 where the duty was to be paid in pursuance of the order of assessment. Moreover, in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. [2009 (9) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURT], the Hon’ble Delhi High Court distinguishing the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Priya Blue.
The refund claim of the appellant was maintainable under Section 27 of the Customs Act and the non-filing of the appeal against the assessed bill of entry does not deprive the appellant to file its claim for refund under Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 and which claim will fall under clause (ii) of sub section (1) of Section 27.
The Customs duty was paid in excess under a self assessment of bill of entry and borne by the appellant for claiming of refund of excess paid duty, the appellant was not required to challenge the assessment of bill of entry.
The appellant is entitled for refund claim subject to the test of unjust enrichment. - Matter remanded back for verification of unjust enrichment - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1121
Denial of refund claim of excess duty - Bar of limitation - Commissioner sanctioned refund claim - Assessee filed separate refund claims after 7 years - Held that:- When there is no provision for filing a second refund application, the question of limitation does not arise. Further, the time limit under Section 27(1) of the Customs Act would be for the first application and the appeal is a continuation of the original proceedings and therefore there can be no limitation in respect of the proceedings pursuing the refund claim. Accordingly, both the questions of law are answered in favour of the assessee and against the Revenue. - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (12) TMI 1120
Petition filed against SCN - SCN alleges several acts of omission and commission at different places namely within the Commissionerate of Nhava Seva Port, Mumbai, at Kandla Port in the State of Gujarat, at Tuglakabad , New Delhi and at Kolkata - Held that:- Apart from settled principles, which indicate as to how the writ jurisdiction has to be exercised and for interfering with the show cause notice, we are satisfied that the apprehension of the Petitioner that the noticees may have to travel and face adjudication at several venues at the hands of different adjudicating officers is taken care of by the statement made, on instructions, by Mr.Jetly . We accept it as an undertaking given to this Court. We direct that the Respondents shall take the requisite steps so as to comply with their own guidelines and circulars to ensure that the adjudication will be held and concluded at one venue and not requiring the Petitioner to travel and attend the offices of several adjudicating authorities, bodies or officers, particularly at Delhi, Mumbai, in the State of Gujarat or at Kolkata.
The argument that there is a pre-adjudication and predetermination of the issues raised in the show cause notice need not detain us. That may require us to go into the contents and particularly merits of the show cause notice, which is not permissible at this stage. We clarify that it would be open for the Petitioner to raise all contentions including those based on the grounds in the Writ Petition at the adjudication of the show cause notice, it would also be open to them to contend that despite their appearance before the adjudicating authority, the show cause notice and to several persons, combining several issues, several acts of omission and commission alleged to have been committed by the persons and entities having no business connection or business relation makes the show cause notice itself vulnerable. Show cause notice purports to level certain allegations and serious doubts, but there is already determination or adjudication with regard thereto and issuance of such notice is, therefore, a mere formality. These and all contentions are kept open for being raised by the Petitioner before the adjudicating authority and equally at an appropriate stage thereafter. - Petition disposed of.
........
|
