|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 129 Records
-
2016 (4) TMI 488 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Assessment of duty - Matter of appellant was not considered in its correct perspective - Held that:- this applicant instead of pursuing available legal remedies against our final order, filed various miscellaneous applications which were all disposed of by the tribunal and the last miscellaneous application was also disposed of. This miscellaneous application which has been filed is also vague and is in continuation of various miscellaneous applications filed. Therefore, as the applicant in this miscellaneous application has not been able to bring out any issue for consideration of the bench, the miscellaneous applications are dismissed. - Decided against the appellant
-
2016 (4) TMI 487 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Refund claim of 5% additional duty - levied under sub-section 5 of section 3 of Customs Tariff Act, 1985 - Goods imported and cleared in terms of Notification No. 102/2007 dated 14.09.2007 - Held that:- the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in his impugned order has not discussed the merits of the case and remand the matter back to the lower appellate authority, which is beyond the jurisdiction w.e.f. 11.05.2001 under Finance Act, 2001 as observed by the Tribunal, in the case of CC (Imports), Mumbai Vs. Clestra Modular Systems Pvt. Ltd. [2009 (9) TMI 751 - CESTAT MUMBAI]. Further, the LB of this Tribunal has held that even if there is no endorsement in the commercial invoices, the SAD of refund should be allowed. Therefore, by following the same, the impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant
-
2016 (4) TMI 442 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT
Revokation of suspended licence - Imported cigarettes without proper declaration through respondent - Commissioner after granting personal hearing within 15 days of the date of suspension, did not order either continuing or revoking the suspension for nearly five and half months. So, Tribunal by interpreting Regulation 19&20 of Regulations of 2013 came to conclusion of automatic revokation of suspension.
Held that:- proviso to Regulation 19 of the Regulations of 2013 provides that in case of Principal Commissioner of Customs or Commissioner of Customs, as the case may be, passes an order for continuing the suspension, the further procedure thereafter shall be as provided in Regulation 20. As noted, Regulation 20 prescribes procedure for revoking licence or imposing penalty. The proviso to Regulation 19 refers to the further procedure to be undertaken after the competent authority has passed an order continuing the suspension of the broker, which prima facie, in our opinion, is an emphatic way of providing that if the order of suspension of a broker is continued, the authorities would proceed to decide finally on the question of imposing penalty or for revoking the licence. This would not, however, mean that for some reason, authority under Regulation 19(2) decides to not continue the suspension or to revoke it, no further procedure under Regulation 20 can be undertaken.
In a given case, the authority may decide not to continue the suspension of the licence of the broker, may nevertheless be advised to undertake proceedings for imposing penalty or some such action under Regulation 20. Likewise, mere lapsing of the order of suspension of licence for want of further continuation in terms of sub-regulation (2) of Regulation 19 may not debar the Department from further action under Regulation 20.
-
2016 (4) TMI 441 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Extension of benefit of Notification No. 17/2001-Cus - Imported cable for X-Ray equipment and claimed benefit - Appellant produced end use certificate from the jurisdictional Deputy Commissioner of Central Excise which is one of the condition of the Notification but Revenue had not accepted it as it was produced beyond three months of the clearance of the consignment - Held that:- findings of both the authorities are erroneous, as the said Notification No. 17/2001-Cus mandates production of end use certificate only for the reason and ascertainment that the imported consignment has been put to use for which it was imported. The said Notification also provides for extension of time for production of such certificate. Undisputedly appellant had not sought time extension. Therefore, when there is no dispute as to that the appellant has put to use the consignment of cables as was imported by them nor any allegation that the said cables were diverted, the benefit of notification cannot be denied to appellants. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief
-
2016 (4) TMI 440 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Demand of Interest - Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Import of "IS 1000 fibre-optic endoscope surgical system" classifying under Customs Tariff Heading 9018.90 and claimed benefit of concessional rate of duty @ 5% - Adjudicating Authority held mis-declaration of goods and denied benefit of exemption Notification - Held that:- no interest under section 28AB ibid is recoverable because the demand has not raised/confirmed under Section 28 ibid, adding that even if the impugned order is taken to be issued in the context of finalisation of the provisional assessment under section 18 ibid no interest can be demanded as the provision for interest liability was introduced on 13.07.2006 wide insertion of section 18(3) while in the present case, the Bill of Entry was provisionally assessed on 28.10.2002 and that the interest cannot be demanded upon finalisation even if such finalisation was done after 13.07.2006.
Imposition of penalty - Section 114A of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that:- the Show Cause Notice did not raise the demand in terms of Section 28 ibid. The wording of Section 114A ibid makes it expressely clear that penalty under that Section is attracted when liability to pay duty or interest is determined under Section 28 ibid. Thus, penalty under section 114A ibid is simply not attracted.
Imposition of penalty - Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Held that:- by following the judgment of Delhi High Court in the case of CC (I&G) Vs. Care Foundation [2014 (3) TMI 641 - DELHI HIGH COURT], the penalty imposed on appellant no. 2 should be reduced in the same ratio to ₹ 1 lakh.
As regards penalty on Mr. Bhuvander Kaul, it is clearly brought out in the impugned order that he was the one looking after the import of the said equipment and that he was having knowledge of the mis-declaration and was a part of the entire plan to mis-declare the impugned goods. Thus, penalty on him is attracted. But in the given circumstances and having regard to the fact that penalty on M/s. J. Mitra & Bros, (who was also aware of the mis-declaration and was part of the plan to mis-declare the impugned goods) has been reduced by us from ₹ 5 lakhs to ₹ 1 lakh, the same principle has to be followed in the case of Mr. Bhuvander Kaul also.
As regards the penalty on the CHA, (M/s Elecon Cargo Pvt. Ltd.), it filed a Bill of Entry on the basis of the documents made available to it by the importer and it had duly enclosed the supplier's invoice which described the goods as "Endoscopic Intuitive IS 1000 da Vinci Surgical System". There is nothing on record to show that the CHA was deliberately trying to mislead Customs or was having any mala fide. The very fact that the relevant invoice was duly enclosed along with the Bill of Entry submitted to Customs is indicative enough that it was not the intention of the CHA in any way to hoodwink Customs. Thus, penalty on the CHA is not attracted. - Matter disposed of
-
2016 (4) TMI 439 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Classification - GSM/GPRS/GPS/Terminal with RF ID interface/ 300 MAH Battery/ Audio - whether the goods to be classifiable under CTH 85256019 or under CTH 85269190 - Held that:- the Commissioner (A) has observed that the goods are meant for controlling the movement of the vehicles. It is also clear that the vehicle user is not aware of his position or is able to communicate / transmit about his position and he cannot navigate to reach a particular destination on his own. He can only be contacted by sending a SMS through service provider. All the data is radioed through service provider. This above observation of the Commissioner (A) does not represent the factual portion in as much as the impugned goods not only enable the taxi company to know where each its vehicles (which are fitted with the impugned goods) was located but also enable it to instruct the driver to proceed to a particular spot and the driver of the vehicle is also able to give feedback to the taxi company. Therefore, the impugned goods are clearly GPS trans receiver rather than mere GPS receiver and would therefore, be covered under CTH 85269190 whose import is restricted requiring import license under EXIM policy 2004-2009. - Decided in favour of revenue
-
2016 (4) TMI 438 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Interpretation of explanation - Import of software separately along with hardware - Whether the software imported was "Information Technology" software in terms of explanation given in entry 285 read with CTH 85.24 in terms of Notification No. 17/2001-Cus. dated 01.03.2001 or not - Held that:- having examined the scope of the explanation and utility of the above software, in absence of any contrary evidence or authentic literature, from the revenue, to discard the claim of the appellant, it can irresistibly be concluded that the software imported by the appellant was "Information Technology" software. - Decided in favour of appellant
-
2016 (4) TMI 408 - DELHI HIGH COURT
seeking release of seized goods - Waiver of right to be given a SCN under Section 124(a) of the Act - Non-issuance of SCN under Section 110(2) of the Customs Act 1962 for over six months and also no adjudication order passed in next six months - Department contended that petitioner made a statement that “I do not want any show cause notice and any personal hearing and matter may be decided on merit in my absence”, therefore, it is contended that there was no requirement to give a SCN to the petitioner within six months - Held that:- despite the waiver by the petitioner of the right to be given a SCN in terms of Section 110(2) of the Act, no adjudication order was passed for a period of one year after the seizure. The Petitioner could, therefore, not be bound by such waiver after the expiry of the time limit under Section 110(2) of the Act. In such circumstances, there was no justification for the respondents to continue to detain the goods seized - Therefore, it is directed that the goods seized be forthwith released unconditionally to the petitioner and this will, however, not preclude the respondents from proceeding under Section 124 of the Act ad passing an adjudication order in accordance with law. - Decided in favour of petitioner
-
2016 (4) TMI 407 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Demand of duty - Time barred - Denial of exemption under Notification No. 84/97-CUS dated 11/11/1997 - Import of goods for setting up of a co-generation power plant - Goods are not eligible for concession under the said notification as the certificates are not proper and genuine bearing forged signature of the competent officer - Held that:- on being informed by the Investigating Officer about forgery and illicit nature of import, OCIL deposited the full duty liability before even the adjudication of the case. The concession on the goods cannot be claimed based on forged documents irrespective of who is responsible for such forgery. Submission of such forged document for claiming exemption is a clear case of mis-statement. OCIL’s plea that they are not involved in the forgery and hence, there is no willful mis-statement on their part cannot be accepted in so far as the correct duty liability on the imported goods are concerned. Therefore, by referring Hon’ble Supreme Court’s decision in CC (Preventive) vs. Aafloat Textiles (I) P. Ltd. [2009 (2) TMI 75 - SUPREME COURT], since fraud was involved, in the eye of law such documents had no existence. Since the documents have been established to be forged or fake, obviously fraud was involved and that was sufficient to extend the period of limitation.
Confiscation of goods in lieu of redemption fine - Impugned goods were neither seized nor released on provisional basis in terms of bond executed by the importer - Held that:- No redemption fine can be imposed in the above situation. Hence, imposition of redemption fine on the goods which were never available for confiscation is not legally sustainable.
Imposition of penalty - Section 112 of the Customs Act - Goods liable for confiscation in view of irregular claim for exemption - Held that:- while the goods were found to be not eligible for concession, in view of forged certificate, the role of the importer has to be seen in the factual context. Since, wrong claim of exemption will attract provisions for confiscation of goods, penalty under Section 112 will get attracted on OCIL.
Imposition of penalty - Section 112(a) & 114A of the Customs Act - Held that:- act of collusion, willful mis-statement or mis-representation are not proven so the penalty under Section 114A cannot be imposed on the importer (OCIL). ICICI Bank Ltd as are not involved in the act of forgery and have not knowingly abetted any illegal act and hence are not liable for penalty under Section 112. - Appeals disposed of
-
2016 (4) TMI 406 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Disallowance of drawback claim - Exporter of bicycle parts to Iran, Tehran and Egypt - Jurisdiction - Whether DRI officer is a proper officer to issue show cause notice - recovery of erroneously granted excess draw back in terms of Rule 16 - Held that:- as per circular, show cause notices are required to be issued in terms of provisions of Rule 16 of the Customs, Central Excise Duties and Service Tax Draw back Rules, 1995 within the monetary limit laid down in the said circular, before any recovery can be initiated. As such, though there is lacuna in the said Rule 16 inasmuch as the same does not specifically provide for issuance of show cause notice and only refers to the demand made by the proper officer, but the said demand has to be made by the Proper Officer by way of issuance of show cause notice, as per the understanding of the Board also in the relevant portion of the Circular No. 24/11-Cus.
By applying the ratio of law, declared by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Syed Ali [2011 (2) TMI 5 - Supreme Court] and subsequently followed by various other High Court, it has to be held that DRI officer was not the proper officer for issuance of show cause notice for the purpose of demand of allegedly erroneously granted excess draw back. Therefore, the show cause notice having been issued by ADG, DRI Delhi, is without jurisdiction and consequently the impugned order become void ab initio and cannot be upheld. The same is liable to be set aside on the ground of jurisdiction itself.
Merits - Mis-declaration of goods - Value of goods as also port of discharge are contrary to even the procedure adopted by the Customs authorities - As per report of Consulate General of India at Dubai, only small fraction of iron was auctioned by Dubai DHS 31000 equivalent to ₹ 3,10,000/- - Revenue alleged that goods are overvalued as the goods have been examined at the end of supplier also, therefore, it cannot be alleged that goods were undervalued in the absence of contemporaneous price for the purpose of like kind of goods.
Held that:- It was also found that out of 3 merchants/financiers only one company was not found at the address. Further it is found that the Revenue is heavily relied on the statement of Shri Navdeep Goyal representative of shipping agency but he was not made available for cross examination. Therefore, the said statement cannot be relied on.
During the course of investigation, it was found that the appellant exported bicycles parts which were procured from various suppliers who processed the bicycles parts. There is no single evidence on record to show that the appellant has manufactured/ used sub-standard raw materials and all the suppliers have admitted that they have provided goods to the appellants. The appellant is a regular supplier/exported various other consignments of bicycles parts of similar nature. No departmental officers were alleged that having conspiracy with the appellants and there is verification report is on record. Therefore, in the absence of any supportive evidence except the report from the Consulate General of India at Dubai which is also not conclusive. In the absence of any such supportive evidence, it cannot be alleged that the appellant has availed excess drawback claim erroneously. Therefore, the demand is set aside on merits. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief
-
2016 (4) TMI 397 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Valuation of imported goods involving transaction between related persons - Applicability of Rule 3(3)(a) of the Valuation Rules - Import of components, spare parts, capital goods etc. from foreign supplier - Valuation to be done by Special Valuation Branch - Held that:- the Revenue has not brought forward any material to allege a change in the fact or circumstances as applicable to the past and upheld for the future imports by the Original Authority. Also the Original Authority as well as the first Appellate Authority have examined and gave categorical findings regarding the acceptance of transaction value. On perusal of the grounds of appeal, no ground is found to interfere with the orders of the lower Authorities. - Decided against the revenue
-
2016 (4) TMI 396 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking modification of conviction order - Possession of 90kg Ganja - No fair investigation carried out and also no independent public witness was associated at any stage - Held that:- mere denial of recovery of the Ganja from the truck is not enough to exonerate A-1. Once physical possession of the contraband has been proved, Section 35 of the NDPS Act comes into play and the burden shifts on the appellant to prove that he was in conscious possession of it. In such a situation, the accused is presumed to be in conscious possession as has been held in Ram Singh v. Central Bureau of Narcotics [2011 (4) TMI 1286 - SUPREME COURT]. If the accused takes a stand that he was not in conscious possession, he has to establish the same. As has been held in Dharampal Singh v. State of Punjab[2010 (9) TMI 1005 - SUPREME COURT]. As the materials brought on record would show, A-1 was found sitting in the truck, his presence in the truck has been clearly established. It is proven that A-1 was in control of articles in the truck. Possession in a given case need not be physical possession but can be constructive, having power and control over the articles. Therefore, there can be no iota of doubt that he was in conscious possession of the same.
A-2’s conviction is primarily based only upon his disclosure statement. He disclosed that when they were taking tea at Peepra Kothi, an individual Lallan met A-1 and informed that he had loaded three plastic kattas containing Ganja in the truck and it would be collected by someone at Delhi. He further disclosed that Lallan had assured to pay ₹ 8,000/- for the deal. The Investigating Agency did not examine any tea shopkeeper from where the appellants had taken tea or the plastic kattas were allegedly loaded. Nothing has come on record to show if A-2 was acquainted with the said Lallan or the individual to whom the Ganja was to be delivered at Delhi. The prosecution has thus failed to prove if A-2 was in exclusive and conscious possession of the contraband. He deserves benefit of doubt. Therefore, conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court qua him cannot be sustained and A-2 shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. - Appeal disposed of
-
2016 (4) TMI 368 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Enhancement of value - Enhanced only on the basis of NIDB data without rejecting the transaction value - Import of goods describing as Stainless Steel Coils Grade 201 “Ex Stock” but found of prime quality and weight was also found in excess - Held that:- there is neither any allegation nor any evidence on record to show that the value agreed upon between the importer and the exporter does not reflect the correct position. As the similar issues are considered in number of earlier decisions it is held that adoption of NIDB Data, without any other evidence on record to establish the transaction value is incorrect, and not proper and justified. Also revenue has not made any efforts to reject the transaction value. There is virtually no evidence on record to indicate that the value agreed upon between the importer and the exporter is not correct or any consideration of the goods has flown back to the exporter from the appellant. If that be so, the transaction value would reflect the correct assessable value of the imported items. Otherwise also, there is catena of decisions holding so. Therefore, the value cannot be enhanced.
Imposition of penalty - Held that:- imposition of penalty of ₹ 25,000/- on the importing firm is not justified in as much as the Appellate Authority has himself arrived at a finding in favour of the assessee. Having held that there was no malafide on the part of the importer, it was not proper for the Appellate Authority to impose penalty on the firm. No tests have been carried out, no experts opinion obtained and as such it is difficult to accept the Revenue's proposal that the goods were not of the Grade declared by the assessee and were of higher Grade. However, apart from observing that there was no willful mis-declaration by the importer so as to avoid incidence of a higher duty, department has also observed that even a small percentage of the excess goods covered by one of bills of entries was also not at the instance of the importer. However, in spite of that department has imposed penalty on the importer. Therefore, the said part of the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) is self-contradictory, thus not calling for imposition of any penalty on the importer. - Decidde in favour of appellant with consequential relief
-
2016 (4) TMI 363 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Whether the Tribunal erred in relying upon the statement of one Sundaram when the said statement was not made available to the appellants either through the show cause notice or during the proceedings before the learned Collector (Appeals) - Seizure conducted on 16.6.1992 in the business premises of the assessee by name T.R.Nanniar (who is now no more) and seized 6 silver ingots weighing 19.165 kilograms, on a reasonable believe that the same was smuggled. A statement was recorded from T.R.Nanniar on 16.6.1992 under section 108 of the Customs Act, 1962.
Held that:- Before proceeding with the questions of law referred to us by the Tribunal for our consideration, it is necessary to take into two important developments. The first is that the appellant is no more. The second is that the party, whom the appellant wanted to cross-examine, viz., Sundaram is also no more. The appellant did not ask for cross-examination of Sundaram. The seizure took place about 24 years ago. The reference itself was of the year 2000. Today, even if the contention that Sundaram ought to have been produced for cross-examination is upheld, the matter has to be remitted back, but, it is impossible to produce Sundaram for cross-examination.
Therefore, taking into account the developments and also taking into account the admission made by Nanniar, the Tribunal did not commit any mistake in relying upon the statement. - Decided against the appellant
-
2016 (4) TMI 362 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Imposition of fine and penalty - Export of marble articles such as table tops - Declared value on higher side and there is variation in import prices, so the goods are taken back to town - as goods are liable for confiscation, redeem them on payment of fine and penalty of ₹ 1,00,000/- and ₹ 10,000/- respectively but after department being gone into appeal, the fine and penalty increased to ₹ 4,00,000/- and ₹ 7,50,000/- respectively - Held that:- the earlier adjudicating Commissioner vide his order-in-original has found the market value of the goods around $ 30/- to $ 70/- per sq.m. and the realistic value could not be more than ₹ 8 to 10 lakhs in each case and the exporter had accepted this adjudication order. It is pertinent to mention that the declared value of the marble i.e. US$ 650/- per sq.m. is extremely high, considering the fact that import prices of the goods during the relevant period varied from $ 30/- to $ 70/- per sq.m. In the impugned order, the learned Commissioner has also observed that by overvaluation, the appellant would have got the benefits of customs duty to the tune of ₹ 11,17,402.73 (approx.) by showing the export towards fulfilment of export obligation under the EPCG licence dated 21.3.1996. As per the remand order of the Tribunal, the learned Commissioner redetermined the redemption fine and revised it to ₹ 4,00,000/- which, according to our opinion, is not excessive and therefore, upheld. However, the learned Commissioner has revised the penalty from ₹ 20,000/- to ₹ 7,50,000/- which, is on the higher side and, therefore, reduced to ₹ 5,00,000/- and there is no change in in value of redemption fine. - Decided partly in favour of appellant
-
2016 (4) TMI 278 - PATNA HIGH COURT
Availment of benefit under Notification No.01/2011-CE, dated 1.3.2011 - Appeal dismissed on the ground that the review petition is pending and the matter is sub judice and it would be premature to decide the appeals without a final decision on the issues raised in the Supreme Court - Held that:- the impugned order, dated 23.11.2015, which the respondent No.3 has passed, is wholly misconceived inasmuch as mere fact of filing of the review petition, in the Supreme Court, seeking review of the Supreme Court decision, in M/s SRF Ltd. –v-Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2015 (4) TMI 561 - SUPREME COURT], could not have been a ground for dismissing the appeals. In fact, this legal position could not be disputed on behalf of the respondents. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside. - Application disposed of
-
2016 (4) TMI 277 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Burden on whom to establish that the goods are smuggled into the country - Seized certain quantities of Canvas Shoes and Chappals of foreign origin - licit import of the seized goods - Revenue contended that when marks and numbers on the seized goods did not tally with the documents furnished by the Respondent, then the onus is shifted to the respondent herein to establish the licit possession of the goods - Held that:- similar goods are being imported into India where marks and numbers are not specified in the invoices/packing list and accordingly can not be described in the Bill of Entry. Once such goods are cleared into the country without raising any objection, regarding brand name etc., then at the time of interception it cannot be seized on the grounds that the goods are of smuggled nature. The goods seized are also not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962 and no investigation is conducted by the Revenue to indicate that the goods seized in the present proceedings were of smuggled nature. When goods are not notified under Section 123 of the Customs Act, 1962, then the burden is on the Revenue to establish that the goods are smuggled into the country. - Decided against the revenue
-
2016 (4) TMI 276 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Eligibility for refund of SAD when supplied/sold in DTA clearances from SEZ - Notification No.102/2007-CUS - Goods were originally imported by the appellant for use in the SEZ Unit and such imports are considered to be warehousing of goods after importation, so, the responsibility of payment of duty on such warehoused goods when cleared lies on the importer.
Held that:- as per definition of importer in Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962, appellant remained an importer till the goods are cleared for home consumption i.e. sale to DTA unit in the present proceedings. As per Rule 48(1) of SEZ Rules, 2006 a Bill of Entry for home consumption is required to be filed by Domestic Tariff Area buyer. The proviso contained in this Rule 48(1) mentions that Bill of Entry for home consumption may also be filed by SEZ Unit on the basis of authorization from a DTA buyer. For the purpose of interpreting a Notification issued under Section 25(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 the definition of importer given in Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962 is required to be followed, according to which the Appellant was an importer of the goods when imported into India and paid VAT at the time of sales to DTA units. The SAD paid has not been recovered from the DTA buyers. The conditions of Notification No.102/2007-CUS are, therefore, fulfilled and the ratio laid down by the case law Adinath Trade Link v. Commissioner of Customs, Kandla [2013 (8) TMI 430 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD] is squarely applicable to the facts of the present case. Hence, the appellant is eligible for refund. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief
-
2016 (4) TMI 275 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty - Mis-declaration of quantity of goods - Import of Gold, Platinum and Silver Jewellery (Plain) - Jewellery purchased in auction in Italy - Held that:- it is not a regular case of import of jewellery, the declarations in the bill of entry were made based upon the invoice issued by M/s Graser, Italy (exporter), which has the stamp of approval by the Court of Bassano Del Grappa, Italy as also by the official liquidator. It is the total cost of the entire consignment, which stands paid by the assessee to the foreign exporter in terms of the auction bid accepted by the Court and the entire consignment is covered by the letter of the official liquidator. Hence, no mis-declaration as regards quantity of the goods can be attributed to the assessee. In as much as the value of the entire consignment [including the value of the alleged excess found quantity] stands declared by the appellant, the said factor cannot be made a ground either for confiscation of the goods or for imposition of penalty upon the appellant. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief
-
2016 (4) TMI 231 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Seeking alternate remedy - against order of the Commissioner granting provisional release of goods - Onerous conditions imposed by the respondents - Held that:- as was noticed in Spirotech Heat Exchangers Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India [2016 (3) TMI 37 - DELHI HIGH COURT], since the Respondent does not appear to be inclined to follow the aforementioned orders and the binding order of the Supreme Court, and are compelling exporters and importers to approach this Court every time for relaxation of the conditions imposed for the provisional release of goods, relegating the Petitioner to a statutory remedy would not be efficacious. Consequently, the conditions imposed in the order dated 11th March, 2016 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export) are modified and the Court directs the provisional release of the goods in favour of the Petitioner subject to the Petitioner executing a bond in the sum equivalent to 100% of the re-determined value of the goods and furnishing security in the form of bank guarantee for a sum equivalent to 30% of the differential duty, with an auto renewal clause and as per RBI guidelines. - Petition disposed of
|
