|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 154 of 154 Records
-
2014 (12) TMI 151 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Jurisdiction of the officer issuing Show Cause Notice - Proper Officer or not - Seizure of goods - Goods imported in name of dummy firms - misdeclaration of goods in terms of description, quantity and value - Jurisdiction of custom officer - Proper officer - Held that:- If the show cause notice has been issued by the Director of Intelligence, then, we have to find as to whether he was competent to do so. In that regard, we have on record the Notification dated 26th April, 1990 Exhibit-I at page 369 of the paper book - when section 17 and 28 are specifically referred to in the Notification, then, we do not see any force in the argument of the Petitioner that the DRI was not competent to issue the subject show cause notice. The Notifications clearly indicate that the officers of this directorate have been entrusted or assigned the functions of the Customs Officers for the purpose of these sections. They could have therefore set the law in motion.
Section 28(11) was inserted by Act 14 of 2011 w.e.f. 16th September, 2011. That alters the basis of the Judgments, which have been delivered by any Court of law, Tribunal or other authority. Once this section says that all persons appointed as officers of Customs under section 1(4) before 6th July, 2011 shall be deemed to have been and always to be the proper officers for the purpose of this section, then, the Notifications, which are referred by us above at page 369 and 373 of the paper book are specifically saved and validated. They have been given a retrospective effect. These Notifications were holding the field and were not quashed or set aside. In the teeth of such Notifications, the legislature stepped in to clarify the position that if the functions of the Customs officer can be entrusted or assigned by the Central Government or the Board in terms of section 6 of the Customs Act, 1962, then, all such Notifications, have been validly issued and enforced. They enable the parliament to clarify that the officers mentioned therein shall be deemed to be the proper officers for the purposes of section 17 and 28 of the Act. Precisely, that has been done in the instant case.
The assignment of functions to these officers, who were earlier carrying on preventive work came w.e.f. 6th July, 2011. That Notification was not, at the relevant time, given retrospective effect. It is in such circumstances that the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that in terms of the Notifications, which were issued and holding the field, not designating the Collector of Customs (Preventive) as a proper officer for the purpose of section 28 as it then stood, he was not competent to issue show cause notice (see para 24 of Sayed Ali's Judgment). This position has now undergone a change and from 6th July, 2011, admittedly, they have been assigned these functions and of the Custom officers. They are therefore competent and the Notification in that behalf at page 373 of the paper book has been given a retrospective effect. - Even those cases which are governed by section 28 and whether initiated prior to the Finance Bill 2011 receiving the assent of the President shall continue to be governed by section 28, as it stood immediately before the date on which such assent is received. The reference to Finance Bill therein denotes the bill by the section itself was substituted by Act 8 of 2011 w.e.f. 8th April, 2011. Prior to this Bill by which the section was substituted receiving the assent of the President of India, some cases were initiated and section 28 was resorted to by the authorities. - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 150 - SUPREME COURT
Application for withdrawal of petition - Premature petition - Held that:- petitioners have expressed their desire to withdraw these writ petitions realizing the remote possibility of getting any relief in these writ petitions having regard to the premature stage at which this Court was approached by filing of these writ petitions, we are convinced that the petitioners can be permitted to withdraw these writ petitions with the right to work out their remedy as and when any appropriate situation arises for working out such remedy. We also make it clear that whatever impediment caused in pursuing the proceedings by the respondents pursuant to the issuance of the summons under Section 108 of the Customs Act or Section 14 of the Central Excise Act, during the period when the interim order was in operation can always be excluded for availing the statutory period available under the respective provisions of law. - Petition withdrawn.
-
2014 (12) TMI 149 - SC ORDER
Imposition of penalty - Misdeclaration of goods - Abetment in pilferage – Valuation of the goods - Retraction of statement – u/s 108 of the Customs Act – Condonation of Delay – Hospitalisation after bail – Conduct of Accused - Supreme Court dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee against the decision of High Court [2014 (4) TMI 803 - KERALA HIGH COURT] wherein Court held that Commissioner was justified in opining that retraction was an afterthought and he did not make use of the earliest opportunity to do so when he was produced before the Magistrate concerned .
-
2014 (12) TMI 148 - SC ORDER
Validity of Circular No. 18/2006 (Customs), dated 5-6-2006 - Levy of SAD u/s 3(5) on import of Crude Palm Oil, Vanaspati Ghee and Fatty Acid - Supreme Court after condoning the delay dismissed the appeal filed by the revenue against the decision of Gujarat High Court [2013 (6) TMI 536 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] wherein the Court held that any goods whenever the customs duty or additional duty is not fully exempt when imported under DEPB scheme, the entire amount of SAD would have to be paid by the importer.
-
2014 (12) TMI 116 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Import of goods for manufacture of specified goods - Denial of concessional rate of duty under exemption Notification No. 25/99-Customs, dated 28-2-1999 (S. Nos. 17 & 54 of Part A of the Notification) - Revenue contends that raw materials were not eligible for exemption under the said S. No. (17 and 54) of the Notification as the said S. Nos. covered the finished goods ‘Ferrites’ and not Soft Ferrites or Ferrite powder whereas these final products were, instead, properly covered under S. No. 148 of the same exemption notification - Held that:- for recovery of the differential duty of Customs for the goods imported under the Customs (Import of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 1996, it is the Deputy/Assistant Commissioner having jurisdiction over the factory of production, with whom the importer assessee had filed bond for the purpose, is the proper officer for such recovery and that the recovery proceedings are to be in terms of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. - demands have been confirmed by the original Adjudication Authority under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act. Hence we hold that the ratio of the Tribunal decision in the case of Molex India Ltd. [2010 (12) TMI 1046 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] as referred by the Ld. Counsel squarely applies. We hold that demand raised and confirmed under Section 11A of the Central Excise Act instead of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 are not valid being not issued under proper provisions of law. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Extended period of limitation - Held that:- Exemption from Customs duty for import of inputs for their use in Ferrite under Notification No. 25/99-Cus. was availed only after due approval from the jurisdictional authorities. Importation at concessional rate was allowed under notification No. 25/99-Cus. only after jurisdictional authorities issued CT3 certificate. Such certificates were issued after checking availability of concession as specified in the notification along with other conditions. Invocation of extended period of limitation has been alleged in the Show Cause Notices on the grounds that assessee did not disclose full facts to CT3 issuing authority. It is observed that it was for concerned authorities to check the veracity of the declaration. Normally such permissions are granted only after due verifications by the jurisdictional authorities. Once importation was allowed with proper authorization by the competent authority, to invoke extended time of limitation is not permissible. Thus on this account, we find force in the contention of counsel that demands are time barred as invocation of extended period was not justified. - Decided in favor of assessee.
Demand for subsequent period where SCN has been issued under the provisions of Customs - Held that:- For the period after amendment to the notification vide amending Notifications No. 26/2002 w.e.f. 1-3-2002 and specifically vide No. 9/2004-Cus., dated 8-1-2004 in the impugned notification, Ferrites are to be held as distinct and different from the Soft (Pre Calcined) Ferrite Powder and Parts. - Demand for differential duty of customs for the normal period of limitation for Appeal No. E/334/2008 is recoverable from the assessee. As no such computation is available in records, we propose to remit the matter back to the original adjudicating authority to re-quantify the demand. It is ordered accordingly. Assessee is also directed to submit necessary records before adjudication authority within three months of the order for such quantification. However, as we have already held that there is no suppression mis-statement or mala fide on the part of the appellant, we set aside the penalty imposed in the present appeal. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 110 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Maintainability of appeal - Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that:- appellant is not aggrieved by the order passed by the Adjudicating authority. Therefore, appeal is not maintainable as per Section 128 of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order, the same is upheld - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 109 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Provisional assessment - Held that:- reconversion of the vessel from foreign run to coastal run, if the duty paid on provisional basis is found to be excess at the time of final assessment, then the same would be refunded - grounds of the Revenue is mis-placed and mis-conceived. From the case made out by the Revenue, the whole scheme of provisional assessment is to be given a go bye and render meaningless. This will be against the scheme of the Act and the Rules made thereunder - Following decision of Assessee's own previous case [2013 (12) TMI 1244 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (12) TMI 108 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Valuation of goods - Enhancement of valuation - Held that:- Foreign supply is having uniform policy wherein the buyers from their foreign supplier are getting some rate of discount and we have inspected the invoice issued to Brazil and Italy where some rate of discount of 65% given on the price list. Further in precedent case where foreign supplier was having holding 35% of the equity are also getting 65% discount clearing policy on list price and the same has been accepted by the Revenue. Therefore we hold that in this case the transaction value declared by the appellant is not influenced being related person and the transaction value is the correct assessable value. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 70 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Held that:- respondent has shown the sum of ₹ 340.59 lakhs to be recoverable from the department in their balance sheet and they have obtained certificate of the Chartered Accountant to the effect also. There is no provision in law to show specifically the amount in dispute before me to be shown separately as recoverable in the balance sheet. Therefore, I hold that the appeal filed by the revenue is on frivolous ground - Decided against Revenue.
-
2014 (12) TMI 69 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Demand of differential duty - the appellants had not taken into consideration amount on account of dismantling, packing and stuffing - Imposition of penalty - Held that:- In view of the permission by the Asstt. Development Commissioner, the value of the goods is within the permitted limit. Hence, we find that there is no case for imposition of penalties. The penalties imposed under the impugned order are set aside and the appeals are allowed - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 68 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Denial of refund claim - Unjust enrichment - Held that:- admittedly, the appellant has not paid any duty at the time of importation of the goods. They have made a security deposit under project import scheme. It is not disputed that the said amount is not refundable to the appellant. Only dispute in these circumstances is whether bar of unjust enrichment is applicable or not. The appellant has produced a certificate from the Chartered Accountant and shown as receivables in the balance sheet, therefore, the bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable for security deposit. Further, I find that in the case of IDMC Ltd. vs. CC [2013 (2) TMI 257 - CESTAT MUMBAI], this Tribunal has held that in the case of cash securities deposit, the bar of unjust enrichment is not applicable - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 24 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Denial of drawback claim - out of 25 shipping bills, in case of 13 shipping bills Let Export Order have been issued beyond the period of 36 months from the clearance for home consumption of the impugned goods - Held that:- As per the Notification 33/1994 the relevant date is when the goods entered for export and the Notification under Section 74 shows that when the goods are placed under Customs control for export. Therefore, I have examined that whether the date of LET is the relevant date to determine as the date for goods entered for export or the date when the goods put under control of Customs for export is to be taken as date for consideration in the matter. In the light of this, as the exporter filed shipping bill and the goods were placed before the customs authorities for examination - when the goods entered in the Customs area for export the said date is to be termed as date for consideration under Section 74 of the Customs Act, 1962. With these terms as all the shipping bills and the goods have been brought in the Customs area within 36 months from the date of clearance of the home consumption the appellants are entitled for draw back claim. Accordingly, impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 23 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Exemption from payment of SAD to all pre-packaged goods - Import of Aluminium Profiles, hardware for furniture fittings - Benefit of Notification No. 29/2010-Cus dated 27.02.2010 - Held that:- The condition of the Notification is that the goods should be in pre-packaged condition intended for retail sale. The Notification further provides that the retail sale price be fixed as required under the provisions of the Standards of Weights and Measures Act, 1976 (now Legal Metrology Act, 2009) or the rules made thereunder. In the Bills of Entry the appellant declared the goods as "Aluminium Profile, hardware furniture fittings". The goods in question are further used by the furniture manufacture. We find as per the provisions of Legal Metrology Act and the Rules 2011 the provisions applicable to package intended for retail sale are not applicable in respect of packaged commodity meant for industrial consumers. The Legal Metrology Act further provides that retail sale is in relation to commodity means the sale, distribution or delivery of such commodity through retails shops or firms for same by a group of individual or another consumers. In the present case though the goods are pre-packed condition but it is not for retail sale as evident from the declaration filed in the Bills of Entry, the goods in question, are for manufacture of furniture. The buyers further use the item in question for manufacture of furniture and the provisions for packaged items intended for sale are not applicable in respect of packaged commodities meant for industrial consumers. - Decided against assessee.
-
2014 (12) TMI 21 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Denial of refund claim - whether without challenging the assessment order on the Bills of Entry, the appellant is entitled for refund or not - Held that:- As per Section 27 (2), the duty borne by the assessee is refundable without challenging the assessment order. In these circumstances, I hold that the appellant are entitled to file refund claim without challenging the assessment order. appellant had produced the balance-sheet which shows that the amount of Anti Dumping Duty paid by them originally is recoverable advance from the customers. Further, they have produced a certificate to the effect that the Anti Dumping Duty has not formed part of the final product. In these circumstances, I hold that the appellant has passed the bar of unjust enrichment. Therefore the appellants are entitled for refund claim - Decided in favour of assessee.
....
|
