|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 141 to 160 of 246 Records
-
2015 (12) TMI 718 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Waiver of pre deposit - Confiscation of goods - Importer - speed post parcel - The contents of the said parcel were declared as “Food”. However on opening, the same was found to be containing steroids/stimulants primarily used for strengthening the muscle mass. - Held that:- apart from the address given on the parcel, there is absolutely no other evidence to connect the appellant with the imported goods. The appellant in his first statement recorded during investigation had clearly deposed that he was not, in any way, connected with the said parcel and does not know why somebody has used his name and address. In the absence of any corroborative evidence to show that the appellant was the real person for whom parcel in question was meant for, we find that imposition of penalty upon him on the basis of doubt is not, prima facie, justifiable. We accordingly, dispense with the condition of pre-deposit and stay the recovery of the same during the pendency of the appeal. - Stay granted.
-
2015 (12) TMI 717 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Imposition of penalty on a person treating as Importer - import of goods without the knowledge of such person - whether appellant is liable to penalty and whether he should be held to be the importer of consignments of zinc Flux Skimming's for which two bills of entry were filed by CHA M/s. R.N. Lal & Bros - Held that:- appellant has denied to have imported the consignments for which bills of entry were filed by the CHA. The signatures on the bills of entry have been found to be not made by the appellant. Even the CHA who filed bills of entry has not implicated the appellant to have authorized him for filing the impugned bills of entry. There are few statements of Sh. Nanda Ganguly, Sh. Uttam Swarckar, a Sircar holder of CHA , Sh. Sunil Agarwal, a metal Trdev and Md. Fazlul Hoque to the effect that appellant was making certain enquires regarding transportation & importation of zinc Flux skimmings. Penalty under Sec - 112 of the Customs Act 1962 can be imposed only upon on importer or any person who claims himself to be an importer. Appellant has neither filed any bill of entry nor is he claiming the ownership of the imported goods. Circumstantial evidences discussed by the adjudicating authority only raise a suspicion about the appellant but it is a settled position of law now that suspicion howsoever grave can not take the place of an evidence. There is no evidence on record that appellant has signed the bills of entry and has given all the documents personally to the Customs House agent or any other person. Penalty can not be imposed upon the appellant on the basis of suspicion created by presumption & surmises by holding him to be the importer. - Decided in favour of appellant.
-
2015 (12) TMI 657 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Re-Confiscation of car from purchaser after import - Under invoicing of value of cars - Evasion of duty - Imposition of redemption fine and penalty - Held that:- At the time of importation, the car was confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of redemption fine and penalty imposed on the importer and the car was cleared by the importer, Shri Krishan Kant on payment of the penalty. The appellant is the bonafide purchaser of the car in question. - car is reconfiscated which is not permissible in the light of decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Mohan Meakin Ltd. (1999 (12) TMI 58 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) . Therefore, we hold that the confiscation of car is not sustainable, the confiscation of the car is set aside. - Further the appellant is a bona fide purchaser of the car and have no role in importation of car, no penalty is imposable on the appellant. Consequently, penalties imposed on the appellant are set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 656 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Demand of interest on duty paid on DTA clearances of warehoused goods - 100% EOU - Held that:- Impugned goods were imported duty free and warehoused as per the warehouse provisions. The warehousing provisions specify that the same can be warehoused till expiry of three years as per Section 61 (i) (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The duty liability on the goods will arise only after expiry of such time limit, or when the goods are cleared from the warehouse before that time limit. In the instant case, the appellants had imported the goods during the period June 2010 to March 2011 and they had cleared the goods on 13.09.2011. Therefore, clearances of the goods have been done clearly within the permitted period of three years and there is no contravention. As regards the duty, the appellant had sought permission from the Customs department for clearing the goods, and they had deposited the duty amount voluntarily. Therefore, there is no occasion to demand interest from the appellant as there is no delay in payment of the duty. Interest can be levied only if there is delay in payment of duty, which is not the case herein. Therefore, we find no reason to demand interest from the appellant. Consequently, there is also no reason for imposition of penalty, as the appellant has not violated any of the provisions nor delayed the payment of duty. - Impugned order is set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 655 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Refund of excess duty paid - whether the refund claim filed by the assessee in terms of the Tribunal s order would be hit by the principles of unjust enrichment or not - Held that:- Admittedly the appellants have given a Chartered Accountant certificate indicating that duty element has not been received by them from their buyers. As per the majority order of the Tribunal in the case of Business Overseas Corporation Vs. CCE(Import & General), New Delhi [2014 (11) TMI 528 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB)], it was observed that the production of a Chartered Accountant certificate shifts the burden to the Revenue to prove recovery of extra duty collected from the customers by producing positive evidence. As the Revenue failed to advance any evidence to rebut the Chartered Accountant certificate, the allegation of unjust enrichment cannot be upheld. Similarly in the case of Deepak Internationa Vs. CC&ST, Kanpur [2014 (11) TMI 233 - CESTAT NEW DELHI], it was observed that Chartered Accountant certificate certifying extra duty paid not recovered from buyers to be given due evidentiary value especially when the said extra duty reflected in balance sheet as loan and advances recoverable from the Revenue. The appellants have taken a categorical stand in the present proceedings that the adjudicating authority examined the balance sheet of the year 2000-2001 whereas the importation was made in the month of March 2001 and it was reflected in the next financial year, which stands taken into account by the Chartered Accountant.
Appellants have produced sales invoices indicating that the sales were made against cash and no excess duty was recovered by them. The adjudicating authority has not taken into consideration the said invoices merely on the sole ground that the buyers’ address is not given. Admittedly buyers’ names are there and mere absence of the addresses from the sales invoices cannot be adopted as a reason to reject the said evidence. - denial of the refund, which has arisen as a consequence of prolonged litigation by the appellant and the ultimate order of the Tribunal in their favour, on the ground of unjust enrichment is not justified. We accordingly set aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 654 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Levy of CVD - whether or not goods imported by the Respondent under B/E No. 441168 dt 11/11/08 under RMS procedure, were cable Jointing kits not leviable to CVD as per CBEC Circular No. 583/20/2001-CX dt 20/08/2001 issued from F. No. 151/18/96-Ex-4 - Held that:- First appellate authority has held that the goods imported were described as cable jointing kits which is being contested by the Revenue that description in the B/E was given on the basis of product code & not as cable jointing kit. It is also the case of the Revenue in the grounds of appeal that classification of the imported goods was claimed by the Respondent under CTH/CETH 85359090 & not as cable Jointing kit under CTH/CETH 8547 - Respondent had to justify with documentary evidence that the goods imported were in fact 'Cable Jointing kit' falling under CTH / CETA 85.47. After deciding the classification of the imported goods, it is also required to be examined whether the ratio of case law M/S XL Telecom Ltd & others decided by Andhra Pradesh High court and the case law of M/s REPL & others dismissal by Supreme Court will be applicable to imported goods. Even if placing all the imported articles in one kit (as 'Cable jointing kits') does not amount to manufacture, whether the ratio laid down by the courts debar charging of CVD on individual articles as such when imported. In the interest of Justice the order passed by the first appellate authority is set aside and the case is required to be remanded back to the assessing officer as no speaking assessment order has been passed by the Lower authority on the issue of classification of imported goods. - Matter remanded back - Decided in favour of Revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 653 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Demand of differential duty - Undervaluation of goods - Held that:- There is no reference by the Revenue to any contemporaneous import declaring the price of identical goods at a higher value. The only reference is to those imports where the value was enhanced by the Customs Authorities based upon the letter of Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Nhava Sheva, Bombay. Merely because the value was enhanced by the Customs, the same would not become contemporaneous imports. In the present case also, the Customs have enhanced the value and the present enhancement cannot be considered to be contemporaneous for the other subsequent imports. - The value declared by the appellant is on the basis of the contracts entered into by them with the foreign supplier. There is no evidence on record that the value as declared in the invoices is not the correct value or is not in terms of the contract or any under-hand consideration has flown back to the supplier. The reliance on the letter of Commissioner of Customs (Imports) Bombay, which in any case has not been placed before us cannot be adopted as the sole reason for enhancement of the price. - enhancing the value based on cost construction method cannot be held to be a proper method to decide upon the value of the goods, especially when there is no evidence of any consideration flowing back to the foreign supplier.
Adjudicating authority has observed that till February 2013, the lower assessable value was being accepted and the goods were being cleared by the Customs. If that be so, we find no justifiable reasons to enhance the value based upon some other enhancement order of the proper officer under the Customs and to hold the same as contemporaneous. The impugned orders are unsustainable - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 651 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Waiver of pre deposit - Import of parts of Switches and paid concessional rate of duty under exemption notification No. 25/09-Cus dated 28.02.1999 - Assessee did not fulfill all the conditions - Held that:- As per the condition of the exemption Notification, the imported goods would be used in the registered premises of the applicant. In the present case, the applicant failed to comply with the condition of the Notification as they have sent the imported goods to their other unit in Una, which is not registered for the purpose of the availment of concessional rate of duty under Notification 25/09-Cus. So, the applicant failed to make out a prima-facie case for waiver of pre-deposit of entire amount of duty alongwith interest and penalty - Partial stay granted.
-
2015 (12) TMI 650 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Condonation of delay - inordinate delay of 603 days - Held that:- undisputedly, Dr. Kameswar Mishra had been appointed by the applicant to present his case before the ld. adjudicating authority. It is not in dispute that Dr. Mishra had received the impugned Order on 22-1-2012 and made an attempt to communicate the same on 3-4-2012. However, due to absence of the applicant in Indore, the impugned Order sent by Registered Post by Dr. Mishra, was returned, and there was no scope for Dr. Mishra to get in touch with the applicant in filing the appeal. On going through the application and also the affidavits filed by the applicant and his advocate, Dr. Kameswar Mishra, we are of the view that the applicant could not file the appeal in time, not because of his negligence, nor due to lack of bona fideness on his part, but the circumstances were beyond his control. In the result, in the interest of justice, the delay caused in filing the appeal before this Forum deserves to be condoned - Delay condoned.
-
2015 (12) TMI 649 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Condonation of delay - lower appellate authority did not examine the issue on merits but rejected the appeal on account of delay in filing of the appeal, though within the condonable period - Held that:- We are surprised at the way the appeal has been disposed of especially when the appeal was filed within the condonable period. The reasons adduced for the delay that the Managing Director had fallen sick and the Senior Manager proceeded on leave without notice cannot be said to be unsatisfactory. These things do happen sometimes and there is nothing unusual about it. Therefore, the lower appellate authority should have condoned the delay which was within his power and should have decided the matter on merits. Such mechanical disposal of the appeal, for statistics purposes cannot be at the cost of justice. Therefore, we condone the delay and remand the matter to the lower appellate authority for decision on merits after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellant of being heard - Delay condoned.
-
2015 (12) TMI 648 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Violation of Section 40 and Section 51 of the Customs Act, 1962 - confiscation of the goods under Section 113 (g) and to impose penalty under Section 114(iii) - Held that:- exporter and CHA have no control over the goods, once the goods enter into the port of export. I also find that the matter is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Kusters Calico Machinery Ltd. (2010 (3) TMI 474 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT), relied upon by the appellant. Accordingly, following the ratio of Kusters Calico Machinery Ltd. (supra), I set aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 647 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Valuation of goods - Enhancement in value of goods - Held that:- Revenue in their memo of appeal have neither produced any evidence to show that excess payment was made by the importer or has also not disputed the fact of contemporaneous bills of entries. They have simply gone to the arithmetical calculations of value starting from the cost of the raw material. We note that the goods were Stock Lot goods and as such the method adopted by the Revenue, based upon the cost construction basis, cannot be appreciated. As such, we find no infirmity in the view adopted by Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 646 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Confiscation of goods - Enhancement of value - Held that:- Appellant have taken a categorical stand that the goods were purchased on stock lot basis and at the transaction value reflected in the invoice. This fact is clear from the fact that the different cosmetic goods like Air freshners, lipsticks, perfumes, eye liner, mascara, etc. were of various brand names like Yodernia, Revelon, Dove, Lamani, Loreal, etc. Further, we also find that the Revenue has not adopted the Customs Valuation Rules for enhancing the value and instead have gone to do the market survey in India. Such market inquiries reflected the sale value of the products in India and as per the settled law cannot be adopted as the basis for enhancing the value or the imported goods. We also note that the cosmetics carry an expiry date and it is a matter of common knowledge that the same are disposed of by the sellers at a very low cost if the expiry is about to be reached. In any case, we find that the Revenue having not adopted the Valuation Rules sequential-wise and having not produced any evidence of contemporaneous nature to reflect upon the lower value of the imported goods, the adoption of market price cannot be held to be a method in accordance with law. As such, we find no justification in the impugned orders passed by the lower authorities. Accordingly, both the impugned orders are set aside. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 645 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Determination of assessable value of the Ball Valve (Brass Bib Clock) - Held that:- There is virtually no evidence on record to indicate that the transaction value of the imported goods is not correct. Revenue has not bothered to collect any evidence to first reject the transaction value. In fact, the adjudicating authority has not even doubted the transaction value and has simplicitor adopted the assessable value, as opined by the Chartered Accountant - supplier of the goods has given a certificate saying that the goods were manufactured at their factory for various other customers, who did not take delivery and the same were sold as stock lot on “as is where is” terms without any guarantee. In such a scenario, the transaction value as reflected in the invoice issued by the foreign supplier has to be considered as the correct assessable value when Revenue has not produced any evidence to rebut the same. Accordingly, we set aside the impugned order - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 588 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Seizure of gold biscuits - onus to prove - Smuggling of gold biscuits - Held that:- Appellant has discharged the onus of licit acquisition of foreign marked gold biscuits by producing a bill.It is also observed from the first statement dated 5/9/2000 of Smt. Chhabi Biswas and Shri Joy Gopal Biswas that it was only their belief that said gold biscuits were from Bangladesh. It is also not coming out of the investigation as to how both of them believed that gold in their possession was of Bangladesh origin. As already observed trace leading to Joynal, mentioned by Shri Joy Gopal Biswas in his very first statement dated 5/9/2000, was not followed by investigation to establish that seized foreign marked gold biscuits were in fact smuggled into India. Reasonable doubt of smuggled nature of foreign marked gold may be sufficient for the purpose of seizure of gold, by virtue of Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, but the same is not sufficient for confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 when appellant has produced legal document of their licit acquisition. Accordingly, it is held that department is not able to establish the smuggled nature of seized foreign marked gold whereas claimant appellant has been able to discharge his burden by providing licit document of the purchase of 60 foreign marked gold biscuits. In the light of liberalized policy of the Central Government it cannot be held that all the foreign marked gold being bought and sold in India is of smuggled nature.
Statements of both Smt. Chhabi Biswas and Shri Joy Gopal Biswas were written by one of the panch witnesses Shri Chandan Dey. Even their first statements dated 5/9/2000 only convey that they believed that foreign marked gold came from Bangladesh. The trail of Joynal was not pursued by investigation. It was not existing in the statements of Smt. Chhabi Biswas & Shri Joy Gopal Biswas as to how the seized gold was brought into India and by whom. In the above factual matrix, subsequent statement of Shri Joy Gopal Biswas dt. 22/9/2000 recorded in Judicial Custody was more detailed, authentic and the trail given by Shri Joy Gopal Biswas and Shri Nitya Gopal Biswas was followed by investigation. Shri Laljibhai K. Soni confirmed to have sold the said 60 gold biscuits to the claimant appellant. In view of the above observations made, the findings arrived at by the Adjudicating authority, can only raise strong suspicion about the smuggled nature of seized gold but suspicion howsoever grave cannot take the place of evidence when appellant has discharged his onus. It is accordingly held that statements recorded on 5/9/2000 were not reflecting the correct facts of the case. - Decided in favour of assessee.
-
2015 (12) TMI 587 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Suspension of CHA License - whether appellant has violated the provisions of Regulations 13 (a), 13 (b), 13 (d) & 13 (o) of the CHALR 2004 inviting revocation of their CHA License - Held that:- No effort was made by the appellant to check up with the exporter or the freight forwarder whether Shri Sanjoy Singh is their assigned representatives for carrying out the transit of their containers from LCS Jogbani to Dock Kolkata. Regulation 13 (o) of CHALR 2004 clearly provides that CHA, interalia, should verify the identity of his client and functions of his client at the declared address. Shri Amreek Singh and Shri Sanjoy Singh conducted business with the CHA as an agent of M/s. Osia Enterprises and freight forwarder and thus fell into the footsteps of the exporter. No independent efforts were made by the CHA to verify whether the persons dealing with him on behalf of the exporter/freight forwarders are genuine. No confirmation over phone/Mobile was made by the appellant when documents were handed over to the CHA. It is also observed that Shri Dilip Kumar Sharma, Jetty Sircar of the appellant was deputed to attend to the examination of the container when DRI was carrying out the investigation.
CHA was out of business for 8 years but Hon’ble Court while deciding clearly observed that trust between the CHA and the Customs authorities has to be viewed seriously. It was also held that punishment has to be proportionate to the nature and extent of violation. Based on the existing facts in the present appeal before us we hold that appellant was found wanting in discharging his obligations under Regulation 13 (a), (b) & (o) of the CHALR 2004 and accordingly orders passed by the Adjudicating authority under Regulation 20 (1) of CHALR 2004 are upheld - appellant had no knowledge of the contraband nature of the goods substituted in the containers and in view of the ratio of the relied upon case law, punishment for a life time cannot be imposed upon the appellant. We are of the considered opinion that revocation ordered by the Adjudicating authority should be for a limited period. As there is no irregularity committed by the appellant from the date of offence detected by DRI, the revocation ordered by the Adjudicating authority is made effective upto 31/3/2016 and with effect from 1/4/2016 CHA License of the appellant and forfeiture of Security deposit will be restored. - Decided in favour of Appellant.
-
2015 (12) TMI 586 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Smuggled goods from NEPAL - Evidence - Valuation - Foreign origin mobile phones were classified in CTH 8517 for the purpose of assessment and were admitted subject to MRP based assessment under Section 4A - Confiscation of goods - Imposition of redemption fine and penalty - Held that:- There is force in the contention of the appellants that mobile phones are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and therefore the onus is on Revenue to prove that the impugned goods were smuggled. - Only ground on which the goods are held to be smuggled is that the Bills of Entry produced by M/s. Gold Manner Overseas and M/s. Waho Wireless Pvt. Ltd. did not cover the impugned goods. In this regard, it is pertinent to mention that the Bills of Entry filed for import of mobile phones do not mention details of individual mobile phones. Once the goods are in the open market, it is the onus of Revenue to establish with sustainable evidence that these goods were smuggled in any sense other than that they did not carry MRP. We find that Revenue has not been able to discharge this onus.
Even if the appellants had not produced any Bills of Entry to show the licit import of the impugned goods, they would not have been worse of because it is Revenue's onus to establish smuggled nature of goods and there is no evidence in the Show Cause Notice or in the impugned order which even prima facie discharged that onus.
Valuation - It has clearly been brought out that no such MRP was printed on the impugned mobiles and therefore their import and clearance were in violation of provisions of Exim policy which rendered them liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) ibid. In the case of Pacific India Trade Concern Vs. CC (Prev) [2014 (3) TMI 675 - DELHI HIGH COURT], Delhi High Court held that in case of goods which required MRP to be declared on the goods, non-declaration of MRP results in violation of Foreign Trade Policy and rendered the goods liable to confiscation. Twenty nine Cartons of mobile phones remained unclaimed and therefore their absolute confiscation is clearly sustainable. Regarding mobile phones which were claimed, we find that an option was given to the claimants to redeem the same on redemption fine, which was about 20% of the value of the goods, which in our view is not unreasonable or arbitrary having regard to the nature of the goods and therefore does not warrant appellate intervention.
Penalties imposed on the claimants-appellants are on the higher side and need to be suitably moderated. Similarly, M/s. Gold Manner Overseas and M/s. Waho Wireless Pvt. Ltd. have claimed that they had imported these goods which became liable to confiscation in the absence of MRP thereon. Therefore, they are liable to penalty under Section 112 ibid. Shri Arun Kumar Gupta has admitted that he was concerned in carrying and transporting the impugned goods as he collected them from various persons in Delhi before they were loaded in SLR van. He was regularly doing so and therefore there was no way that he was not aware that the goods did not carry the MRP which rendered them liable to confiscation and so he is liable to penalty - Appeal disposed of.
-
2015 (12) TMI 585 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Valuation - SVB has accepted the invoice price as transaction value - no contemporaneous imports as moulds are tailor made - importer/ respondent and the foreign supplier were related under Rule 2(2) of CVR - Held that:- AC(SVB) in his order after examining the agreements and documents and CA certificate accepted the invoice price as transaction value. When the Revenue initially reviewed the said OIO, we find that there is only one ground on which the Revenue filed the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) is that the adjudicating authority has not compared the value of contemporaneous import of similar goods before passing his order. On perusal of the impugned order, we find that para 6 & 7 of clearly dealt the issue in detail and concluded that both for the raw material as well as for the pressing machine there is no contemporaneous imports as moulds are tailor made. - Revenue coming to the Tribunal against new grounds is not maintainable. We find that it is the Revenue who preferred the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) against the adjudication (SVB) order. Nothing prevented the Revenue to raise any number of grounds when the department reviewed the OIO and filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals).
This is the case of SVB order and not confirmation of demand of customs duty under Section 28 of the Act. The adjudicating authority had only determined the relationship between the appellant and supplier and whether any remittance made by the respondent to the principal supplier and whether the invoice price is influenced by the relationship. When the goods are customised as clearly recorded in the OIO as well as in the impugned order, the comparison of contemporaneous imports of similar goods or identical goods does not arise. Moreover, we also find that the validity of the said SVB order had expired in the month of May, 2015 and due for renewal by the authority - No infirmity in impugned order - Decided against Revenue.
-
2015 (12) TMI 584 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Revoking the CHA licence of the appellant - Duty drawback claim - Overvaluation of goods - Held that:- Appellant had not taken authorization from the exporter who was found to be non-existent and the goods were found misdeclared and highly overvalued. - The appellant did not obtain any authorization from the exporter. It never met the exporter nor was in touch with the exporter even telephonically. Thus the question of advising his client to comply with the provisions of the Act simply does not arise. It did not exercise any due diligence vis-a-vis the exporter. Thus, the Commissioner is correct in holding the appellant guilty of violation of various provisions of Regulation 13 ibid. As is evident the violation of Regulation 13 ibid is blatant and serious. - enquiry report was submitted on 16.1.2015 and the impugned order revoked the licence on 13.4.2015 and therefore the order was passed within the time limit prescribed under Regulation 22 of the CHALR, 2004. Several other judgments cited are in regard to reasonability of the punishment stating that the punishment should be commensurate with the offence. This ratio is unexceptionable. It is pertinent to mention that reasonability of the punishment and whether the punishment is commensurate with the gravity of offence is a mixed question of facts and law and needs to be determined in the light of factual matrix of each case.
Offense is really grave inasmuch as no authorization was obtained from the exporter, the exporter was found to be non-existent and no due diligence whatsoever was undertaken. In these circumstances mere filing of shipping bills can not be tantamount to authorization more so when the exporter is found to be non-existent. The documents filed by CHA are treated with a certain degree of trust by the Customs and such trust was completely violated in the present case. Nothing can possibly be a graver mis-conduct on the part of a CHA than to file Shipping Bills in the name of a non-existent exporter without making even preliminary enquiries about the genuineness of exporter in the name of which the documents were filed. Such dereliction of duty on the part of a CHA, can potentially have even graver financial/security consequences. Thus the appellant totally failed to discharge its duties as CHA thereby grossly violated Rule 13 of CHALR, 2004. Such serious violation on the part of the CHA can hardly deserve any condonation or leniency. - appellant blatantly and grossly violated the provisions of Regulation 13 ibid and having regard to the seriousness of the offence, it cannot be said that the punishment awarded is unreasonable, excessive is arbitrary or is in any way not commensurate with the gravity of offense. - No infirmity in impugned order - Decided against the appellant.
-
2015 (12) TMI 583 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Determination of assessable value - import of old and used photocopier mainframes is restricted and the importer required an import licence for the same - Held that:- Revenue has not first rejected the transaction value by production of any evidence. Further, it is not Revenue’s case that any extra money has been delivered to the foreign supplier, without reflecting the same in the records. Revenue has simplicitor adopted the value of another import of old and used photocopier machines. It may not be out of place to observe here that the value of the second hand goods depends upon the number of factors including the conditions of the goods and as such, the second hand goods cannot be held to be contemporaneous to each other. In view of the foregoing, we find no merits in the impugned order of the lower authorities. The same are accordingly set aside - Decided in favour of assessee.
............
|
