|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 148 Records
-
2016 (10) TMI 1396 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT
Section 35F of the Central Excise Act, 1944 – pre-deposit - HELD THAT:- Following the case of Nimbus Communications Limited v/s Commissioner of Service Tax and Another [2016 (8) TMI 451 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT], these Petitions are dismissed. However, we grant six weeks time to the Petitioners to comply with the condition as imposed in the statute for availing of the remedy of appeal. If the amount is deposited, and proof is produced, the Tribunal shall entertain the appeal and decide it on merits so also in accordance with law. The Writ Petitions are disposed off.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1344 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Suspension of license for dealing with Ammonium Nitrate - rejection of import of Ammonium Nitrate - prohibited goods or not - HELD THAT:- It appears that P3 licence has been obtained by the petitioner/appellant to deal with Ammonium Nitrate and other such chemicals either for the purpose of agriculture or for quarrying, etc. As per the submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner/appellant, it appears that wayback in 2012, the Rules came into force which was later amended on 21.6.2013 and thereafter the licence granted to the petitioner/appellant was suspended on 20.5.2016. In the interregnum, there is an import of huge quantity of Ammonium Nitrate which is now lying in the Chennai Port.
In the circumstances, a show cause notice is also shown to have been issued to the petitioner/appellant as per the provisions of Section 6(#) of Explosives Act, 1884 and Rule 42 of Ammonium Nitrate Rules, 2012. As against the show cause notice issued by the second respondent, an appeal lies to the Chief Controller of Explosives.
Whether the petitioner/appellant violated the norms of the Rules, etc. or whether they are entitled to seek permission for moving the goods which are now lying in the Chennai Port etc., all these things would be subject matters to be considered by the appropriate authority viz., the Chief Controller of Explosives, who has got better experience as to the violation of the petitioner/appellant, if any, and after affording an opportunity to the petitioner/appellant, he may come to the right conclusion as per the Rules - the petitioner/appellant shall file an application, within a period of one week from the date of receipt of copy of this order and on receipt of such application, the same shall be decided by the Chief Controller of Explosives, after affording an opportunity to the petitioner/appellant, within a period of fifteen days thereafter.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1339 - SC ORDER
Inherent power of High Court - Whether the High Court while entertaining the petition under Section 482 of the Code has exceeded its jurisdiction - HELD THAT:- This special leave petition need not be entertained and is dismissed.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1290 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Imposition of penalty u/s 114 of Customs Act on CHA - non-application of mind - vicarious liability - it is alleged that CHA have abetted in the fraudulent exports of the impugned goods effected/attempted by M/s. CMA Overseas - HELD THAT:- It is seen that the appeal can be disposed of on the short ground of non-application of mind by the adjudicating authority. The lack of diligence as well as the participative role ascribed to the appellant cannot be alienated from the licensee. While a partner can be proceeded against in his individual capacity for acts of omission and commission in relation to goods that are held liable for confiscation, the primary role of the Customs house agent, in relation to use of the licence issued to the agent, cannot be shifted to an individual, howsoever influential he or she may be in the licensed entity. The fastening of vicarious responsibility on the appellant is beyond the pale of law.
Imposition of penalty is a harsh measure to be invoked after due deliberation of the acts that have led to such offence as are clearly identified in the statute as penalizable. Section 114 has two facets which are to be invoked in mutually exclusive situations. That the adjudicating authority has failed to appreciate the distinction and has failed to invoke the particular provision taints his finding.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1217 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Maintainability of appeal - Held that:- The matters have been coming up on Board repeatedly and were being adjourned in the interest of justice - the appellants are not interested in pursuing the appeals - the appeals are dismissed for non-prosecution.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1171 - CESTAT HYDERABAD
Classification of imported goods - whether the goods sought to be imported are spares as contended by the Revenue or consumables as claimed by the importer/respondent? - Held that: - Pamphlets may be useful for advertisement. In this case, the documents are not mere pamphlets. They are certificates issued by a Chartered Engineer who is an expert in the field and is also authorized for issuing such certificates to the Department on doubtful issues - the impugned goods are not spares but consumables - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1164 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Anti Dumping duty - fabrication of documents - allegation is that the said Prithvi Granites fabricated documents to show the country of origin to be Taiwan instead of China - Held that: - The appellant, M/s. Dixons Cargo and Consolidators Pvt. Ltd. by virtue of an agent M/s. Tri-link Logistics are in the same footing as of such Tri-link Logistics, who are their principals and hence, the actions of the appellant, M/s. Dixons Cargo and Consolidators Pvt. Ltd. are liable for penal provisions as they did not produce proper documents before the lower authorities. We are of the view that provisions of Section 112(b) gets attracted in this case - M/s. Dixons Cargo and Consolidators Pvt. Ltd. and Shri R. Venkatesh are correctly penalized under the provisions of Customs Act, 1962.
As regards the appeals filed by Tony Fernandez and Shri Chandrakant Nagesh Hegde, we do not find any merits in the appeals filed by them, accordingly we reject their appeals and uphold the impugned order which imposes penalties on them. Their appeals are rejected.
Appeal disposed off.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1163 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Valuation - appellants grievance is that with the setting aside of enhancement of valuation, the Tribunal should have given further relief in RF and Penalty, whereas there is no discussion by the Tribunal as regards the quantum of RF and Penalty - Held that: - By setting aside the undervaluation aspect, the Tribunal observed that appeal is allowed to that extent, without adverting to the quantum of RF and Penalty - we allow the ROM and proceed to decide the quantum of RF and Penalty - ROM application disposed off.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1152 - SC ORDER
Condonation of delay in filing appeal - the decision in the case of Sunil Gupta Versus Union of India And Others [2014 (12) TMI 151 - BOMBAY HIGH COURT] contested - Held that: - delay cannot be condoned - SLP dismissed on the ground of delay.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1118 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Reimbursement of additional duty of Customs - Held that: - Law being that payment of VAT is reimbursable if that is paid, in absence of evidence to show that it is paid, there shall no reimbursement of additional duty of Customs at all. If reimbursement is paid that shall run counter to law - appeal dismissed.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1116 - SC ORDER
Demand of Interest - Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - penalty - decision in the case of ESCORTS HEART INSTITUTES & RESEARCH CENTRE [2016 (4) TMI 440 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] referred - Held that: - the issue is fairly covered by the judgment of this Court in CC (I&G) v. Care Foundation [2014 (3) TMI 641 - DELHI HIGH COURT], where it was held that no exception can be taken to the finding that since there was no demand under section 28(8) of the Customs Act for duty, no penalty could have been imposed under that provision and consequently the penalty under section 114A was not sustainable - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1089 - MEGHALAYA HIGH COURT
Seizure of 16 MT of dry betel nuts - grievance of petitioner is that despite the order dated 5-11-2015 of this Court in WP(C) No. 329 of 2014, the concerned authority has not considered the preliminary issues and the matter is sought to be taken up for final hearing without the decision of preliminary issues by the competent authority - Held that: - The conclusion of the letter dated 10-5-2016, effectively nullifies the decision, if at all taken by the Assistant Commissioner. Moreover, when it had been an admitted position that the adjudication was to be carried out by some other authority who would be competent to deal with the matter, we find it rather unjustified that the preliminary issues were sought to be dealt with by the Assistant Commissioner at all.
When we have enquired if any date has been fixed by the competent authority for further proceeding in the matter, learned counsel Mr. N. Mozika, after taking instructions, submits that no further date after 15-9-2016 has been fixed - this writ petition is disposed of at this stage itself with the observations foregoing and with directions that the petitioner shall appear before the concerned Additional Commissioner on 9-11-2016 - petition allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1088 - DELHI HIGH COURT
‘Waterfall’ provision of Section 150 of the CA - auction of goods - import of 2,000 MT of Heavy Aromatics of South Korean origin from a Singapore supplier - orders injuncting respondent Nos. 1 & 2 from selling, transferring, alienating and/or creating any third party interest or parting with possession of 2002.01 MT of Heavy Aromatics pledged with the petitioner and lying in the bonded warehouse of respondent No. 2 at Mundra till such time as the entire dues of the petitioner were recovered from respondent No. 1 - Held that: - it requires to be noticed that, ordinarily, a direction under Section 9 of the Act will not be issued to a party which is not a party to the arbitration agreement. However, this Court has in a series of judgments held that Section 9 of the Act does not limit the jurisdiction of the Court to pass appropriate interim orders which might affect third parties deriving a title “from the party to the agreement unlike the third party having an independent right.”
It is, therefore, seen that the owner of the goods is last in the sequence. The petitioner as a pledgee could at best be said to have stepped into the shoes of the owner and, therefore, in terms of Section 150 of the CA, the dues of the petitioner would have to await the settlement of the Customs duty and dues of respondent No. 2.
The Court finds merit in the submission of Mr. Sibal that the sale of the goods can take place only in terms of Section 150 of the CA. The goods in question are imported and have not been cleared within a period of thirty days after such import. Sections 48 read with Sections 142A and 150 of the CA are straightway attracted. Therefore, the sale of the warehoused goods has to take place only in accordance with Section 150 of the CA and the proceeds thereof have to be applied in the manner provided therein. The dues of the Customs authorities and that of respondent No. 2 have a priority over those of the petitioner and the sale proceeds will have to be applied to settle the dues in that order. Consequently, the question of permitting the petitioner as a pledgee of the goods to bring the goods to sale by way of public auction does not arise.
Without any unnecessary delay, respondent No. 2 should initiate the process, if it has not done so already, to bring the goods to sale by way of public auction after notice to the petitioner. The application of the proceeds of such auction sale will abide by the ‘waterfall’ provision of Section 150 of the CA - The interim orders passed by this Court, thus, far, stand vacated - petition disposed off.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1087 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
SAD refund - benefit of N/N. 45/2005-Cus., dated 16-5-2005 - The Revenue’s contention was that since no sales tax and VAT tax stand paid by the appellant in respect of their final product, so cleared, the benefit of the Notification will not be available to them - Held that: - bills of entries are also appealable in nature and any appeal filed theiragainst was required to be taken up as an appeal by Commissioner (Appeals) and to be decided on merits - Inasmuch as merits have not been considered by him, we deem it fit to remand the matter to Commissioner (Appeals) for decision on merits - appeal allowed by way of remand.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1085 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Valuation - Iranian Pistachios with Shell - enhancement of value - value enhanced solely on the basis of European Public Ledger - Held that: - It is settled that for applying the comparable price of any goods, it is necessary to bring on record that the quality of goods is identical, country of origin is same and the quantity of goods imported and the quantity of the comparable import is also same - In the present case obviously when the price was taken from the European Public Ledger no quantity or any particular import might have been referred in the public ledger - there is no discussion or any evidence taken on record which can show that the price mentioned in European Public Ledger is in respect of the same quality/quantity of goods and from the same country of origin - the price mentioned in the European Public Ledger cannot be blindly applied for enhancement of the declared invoice value of the respondent - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1077 - GAUHATI HIGH COURT
Penalty - confiscation of gold - smuggling - repeat offender - Held that: - the learned Tribunal through the impugned order dated 26-7-2016 (Annexure-G), referred to the statement(s) of the petitioner recorded on 27-12-2006 and 28-12-2006, where the carrying the gold of foreign origin was admitted by the petitioner. It was also noted that the gold was carried in a concealed manner. The petitioner being a repeat offender was also noted by the CESTAT. Thus it was observed that the petitioner has failed to make out a case for waiver of penalty and thus the imposition of penalty was upheld by the Tribunal - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1057 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Penalty u/s 114 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 - smuggling - red sanders - Held that: - the appellant were instrumental in the buying and storing of seized red sander logs for ultimate smuggling out of India. It is also proved that the appellant had given ₹ 10,00,000/- for arranging and storing red sander logs procured, transport the same and handed over to one Shri Badhusha to facilitate the smuggling racket. In the circumstances, the appellant cannot claim innocence or that he has come to this forum with clean hands - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1055 - CESTAT, CHENNAI
Order of appearance of appellant - Held that: - In view of further default to comply to the order, seeking adjournment, the stay granted earlier on 22.1.2014 was vacated on 26.9.2016 - Appellant's conduct clearly shows that the applications were filed to abuse the process of law - appeal dismissed for default - decided against appellant.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1045 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Revocation of CHA licence - by the impugned order dated 1.6.2016, the Commissioner has suspended the licence of the appellant with reference to offence of 2013 - Held that: - After considering the totality of the appellant’s argument, the appellate authority directed to conclude investigation which is still pending, within a period of three months by providing an opportunity to the appellant, as per law and thereafter, the competent authority will take final decision - appeal disposed off.
-
2016 (10) TMI 1007 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
The authorities have passed final order and therefore, draft amendment is required to be moved so that the respondents may have copies of the draft amendment and they file reply dealing with the contentions of the draft amendment - Held that: - Draft amendment is granted. The same shall be carried out - request for adjournment accepted.
........
|
