|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 81 to 100 of 139 Records
-
2016 (5) TMI 557 - SUPREME COURT
Entitlement of benefit under Notification No. 07/2002-2007 dated 05.06.2002 - DEPB benefit in lieu of drawback claimed - Supplies from DTA to SEZ units - Held that:- by reproducing the language of Notification dated 05.06.2002, it uses the expression that the Central Government hereby amends/corrects the Export and Import Policy 2002-2007. Thus it is, clear that insofar as the amendment is concerned, that was made effective by the issuance of this notification. Further, as is clear from the said notification, it was issued in exercise of the powers conferred upon the Central Government by Section 5 of the Act. It is, thus, a statutory notification whereby the EXIM Policy 2002-2007 was amended. With the issuance of such a notification, amendment came into effect from the date of issuance of the notification, i.e., 05.06.2002 and this notification, inter alia, made the exporters who make supplies from DTA to SEZ eligible to claim benefit of DEPB in lieu of drawback for supplies made to SEZ or unit in SEZ.
Insofar as the Circular No. 25/2003 dated 01.04.2003 is concerned, it is only administrative in nature. It prescribed the procedure/requirements that were to be fulfilled for claiming the benefit of DEPB in lieu of drawback. By administrative circular, notification dated 05.06.2002 which was passed under Section 5 of the Act, could not be altered as that would amount to amendment of the notification and it was not within the powers of the Customs Authorities to alter the said date. Moreover, this is only a procedural circular which stipulates the conditions/ procedure that had to be followed for claiming the benefit of DEPB. Therefore, the impugned order is set aside and the appellant shall be entitled to the benefit of DEPB benefit in lieu of drawback as claimed by him. - Decided in favour of appellant
-
2016 (5) TMI 556 - KERALA HIGH COURT
Seeking direction for quashing of detention order - Indulged in repeated smuggling activities of similar nature on earlier occasions also within a short span of time and smuggled huge quantities of gold from Dubai to India - Seizure of gold bars - Petitioner contended that he would be entitled to get copy of the order of detention and the grounds of detention before he is arrested and detained so that the order of detention could be challenged at its pre-execution stage effectively and with full knowledge of the facts and circumstances - 8, 11, 18, 27, 37
Held that:- the contention of the appellant is unsustainable. In the light of the decision of the Constitution Bench in Haradhan Shah v. The State of W.B. and others [1974 (8) TMI 104 - SUPREME COURT], the contention put forward by the petitioners that whether the detenues have complied with the conditions on which bail was granted should have been considered before executing the order of detention, is without any substance. The grounds of detention mentions about the arrest of the detenues, the fact that bail applications were moved by the detenues and they were released on bail on conditions. That the detenues surrendered their passports and that they were restrained from moving out of the State was also considered by the detaining authority, as evident from the grounds of detention. The fact that the detenues complied with the conditions of bail or the orders passed in the Writ Petitions is not a matter to be considered by the detaining authority after passing the order of detention and before executing the order of detention, and that too when the detenues tried their best to avoid execution of the orders of detention. We are not inclined to accept the contentions put forward by the petitioners in this regard.
When the persons involved in the smuggling activities were arrested and they were granted bail, they were bound to comply with the conditions of bail. That they complied with the conditions of bail is not a virtue on their part which is to be favourably taken note of by the detaining authority while passing the order of detention or while executing the order of detention. If they violate the conditions of bail, the consequences would follow. That the detenues complied with the conditions of bail and also the conditions imposed in the interim orders passed in the Writ Petitions, would not in any way deter the authorities from executing the order of detention. It is not necessary to revoke the order of detention on that ground before the order of detention is executed. In the present case, the orders passed in the Writ Petitions were stayed by the Supreme Court. Therefore, those orders could be ignored while executing the orders of detention.
In the counter affidavits filed by the first respondent, the details of the various trips made by Rahila and Hiromasa to Dubai and from there to India for the period from 8.1.2013 to 8.11.2013 have been given. At the time when they were arrested, they were not having sufficient money to pay duty. They were not employed abroad. They did not stay abroad for the required period to enable them to bring gold to India. Rahila and Hiromasa did not produce any document to show that the gold brought by them was by lawful means. The inference possible from these circumstances is that it is likely that they are part of a smuggling racket. Of course, at this stage, the Court is not expected to arrive at any conclusive finding as to whether the detenues are guilty. But, at the same time, the Court is not entitled to shut its eyes to certain hard realities. The sharp increase in the smuggling activities in the State of Kerala is also a relevant factor to be taken note of. The propriety and legality of the subjective satisfaction arrived at by the detaining authority is to be tested taking into account these factors as well. Therefore, we do not find any ground to hold that the orders of detention against Rahila and Hiromasa are illegal or their continued detention is illegal. - Decided against the petitioner
-
2016 (5) TMI 555 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Import of old & used photocopiers - Confiscation in lieu of redemption fine and imposition of penalty - Enhancement of declared value at the time of assessment - Held that:- Revenue has correctly pointed out that multifunctional machines have copying facility are classifiable under CTH 84433100. In view of the observations from the appellant's own case decided by Punjab & Haryana High Court reported as BE Office Automation Products Ltd Vs CCE Gurgaon [2013 (11) TMI 1032 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT] and the settled position of law, we are of the considered opinion that in this case redemptpion fine & penalty imposed are excessive & are respectively reduced to 10% & 5% of the value assessed by the department. - Decided partly in favour of appellant.
-
2016 (5) TMI 554 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Imposition of redemption fine and penalty - Confiscation of seized 2.5 kgs of gold of foreign markings - Appellant's statement recorded under coercion and undue influence - Appellant submitted that making false allegation Customs discarded the duty paid receipt produced by appellant. No enquiry was done by the Customs on this receipt but was simply ignored on baseless pleas.
Held that:- In the present case, the circumstantial evidence suggesting the inference that the goods were illicitly imported into India could not be ruled out for no substantial evidence adduced to prove legal import of the offending goods. He got fullest opportunity to rebut against the alleged acquisition of the offending gold. But, he failed. The effect of the material facts being exclusively or especially within the knowledge of the smuggler, Customs proved its case very successfully. It is a proved case of Customs that the appellant travelled using ticket of another person from Calcutta. A prima facie case is proved against him. If his possession was innocent and lacked the requisite incriminating knowledge, then it was for him to explain or establish those facts within his peculiar knowledge, failing which Customs was entitled to take advantage of the presumption of fact arising against him, in discharging its burden of proof. Department is accordingly held to have proved its case.
Therefore, it is held that the seized gold were smuggled goods. Absolute confiscation thereof is sine qua non and no redemption thereof is at all permissible on payment of redemption fine. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) committed grave error in granting option to redeem the offending gold under section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 15,00,000/-. His order is patently illegal. Therefore, that order on this count is set aside. When offence of smuggling of gold is established in the present case, there shall be no immunity from penalty. Accordingly, the penalty imposed is confirmed. Thus absolute confiscation of gold ordered and penalty imposed on the appellant by learned Adjudicating Authority sustain and that is maintained. - Decided against the appellant
-
2016 (5) TMI 553 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Imposition of redemption fine and penalty - Appellant not a license holder under drug and Cosmetics Act, 1940 - Neither absolute confiscation of goods nor goods were contraband - Tranexamic Acid drug imported and after found nothing questionable in the test report, allowed to re-export - Appellant contended that the exemption granted under Rule 45 ibid requires no license for import of drug of the nature imported.
Held that:- penalty of confiscation is a penalty in rem which is enforced against the goods. In such case, it is not necessary for the Customs authorities to prove that any particular person is concerned with their illicit importation or exportation. It is enough, if the Department furnishes prima facie proof of the offending goods being smuggled one. The second kind of penalty is one in personam which is enforced against the person concerned in the smuggling of the goods. In such case, the Department has to prove further that the person proceeded against was concerned in the smuggling.
Evidence gathered by Revenue unambiguously proved that both the appellant were contributory to the fraud committed against Customs and they made an organised bid to be enriched at the cost of the nation. It is established principle of law that fraud and justice are sworn enemies. When the collusion and fraudulent design of the exporter, importer-appellant, K. Ramlal Jain and M/s. DHL Logistics Pvt. Ltd., surfaced, the impugned goods that came to India, became no mans property and confiscation being an action in rem, the dubious claim of ownership of the goods at different point of time calls for absolute confiscation thereof without any leniency for redemption and re-export of the same. Accordingly, the order of the adjudicating authority requires to be set aside on such count and absolute confiscation of the impugned goods is hereby ordered. In the course of hearing, Revenue informed that the impugned goods have already left India on payment of redemption fine. Therefore it is left to the Chairman of the CBE&C to deal this matter as the Board may consider appropriate in the fitness of the circumstances of the case to protect interest of Revenue since the action of redemption of the goods and re-export has caused detriment to interest of justice. - Decided against the appellant
-
2016 (5) TMI 552 - SC ORDER
Valuation - Determination of transactional value - Provisional assessmet - Unjust enrichment - Whether duty liability has to be determined on the basis of transaction value paid or payable for the supply of goods or the duty liability should be determined on the basis of the shore tank receipt quantity - Tribunal held that when the rate of duty is ad valorem and payment is made for the bill of lading quantity without any adjustment in value for the various losses, it is on the transaction value that the duty liability has to be discharged and not on the basis of the quantity of bulk liquid cargo which is actually received reported in [2015 (2) TMI 127 - CESTAT MUMBAI] - Apex Court dismissed the appeal filed by revenue
-
2016 (5) TMI 551 - SC ORDER
Entitlement for bail - Recovery of gold - Clubbing as regards to recovery in the past - High Court held that the clubbing of total quantity of gold is permitted to find out whether the offence is bailable or non-bailable. If the total value, after clubbing, comes to more than ₹ 1 crore, it does not remain the bailable offence reported in [2015 (7) TMI 1093 - RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT] - Customs - Apex Court dismissed the special leave petition
-
2016 (5) TMI 504 - SUPREME COURT
Import of construction sand - Writ jurisdiction of High Court - entire sand has been released pursuant to the order passed by the High Court. Whether the Plant Quarantine Order is applicable or not, or whether all the legislations that the Division Bench said are applicable or not should not have been gone into by the High Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Be that as it may, as there is no fresh import and as the sand is not there, we keep the question of law open and observe that the High Court should be extremely circumspect while dealing with a writ petition against the notice issuing show cause.
-
2016 (5) TMI 503 - SUPREME COURT
Cancellation of bail - appellant herein, who is an under-trial, in criminal case registered against the appellant and others under Sections 132 and 135 of the Customs Act - Held that:- when the appellant had not violated any of the bail conditions, allowing the application for cancellation of bail after one year and three months, may not be appropriate. - even otherwise it would be a fit case for grant of bail to the appellant at this stage. - We, thus, enlarge the appellant on bail on the same conditions on which it was granted by the Trial Court.
-
2016 (5) TMI 502 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Invokation of Section 113 (d), 113 (II) of Customs Act, 1962 - Confiscation of goods and imposition of fine and penalty under Section 114 (II) - Two types of goods exported viz., Goat wax coated upper finished leather and Goat shoe suede finished leather. Goods alleged to have not satisfied the norms for Finished goods - Appellant contended that in absence of few processes it would not mean that the leather to be exported was not finished leather. Two processes had not been done on the goods viz., “wax coating” and “finishing coat”, therefore it had cured this deficiency by re-processing these goods. Also the goods have been exported.
Held that:- By following the ratio laid down in the Tribunal's order in the case of M/s. Expos Leather Company Vs. CCE, Chennai [2010 (4) TMI 1112 - CESTAT CHENNAI] as upheld by the jurisdictional High Court, the impugned order imposing fine and penalty is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief
-
2016 (5) TMI 501 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Whether clothes seized by the department were meant for export to Nepal illegally - the evidences that seized goods were meant for export, are the statements of the driver of vehicle and the helper. These statements, as brought out in the SCN, convey that goods were to be taken to Nepal through bullock carts and that goods of similar nature were brought regularly and transported to Bargania by them at an average of 12-15 times a month.
Held that:- in SCN it is stated that articles of clothes were meant for Nepal. The evidences of both the driver and the helper are hearsay evidences without any corroboration and authenticity. It is not on record as to from where the driver & helper got the conviction that seized goods were to be sent to Nepal and whether on earlier occasions they had taken similar consignments of clothes to Nepal. On the contrary, the documents produced by the owner of seized clothes regarding licit acquisition of seized goods were not at all investigated by the department.
So, in the absence of any other corroboration, the statements of co-accused driver and helper cannot be made the clinching evidences to decide the case against the appellants. There is also no evidence on record whether the seized goods were actually moving towards the border. Rather as per the statements of the driver and the helper also the goods were being taken to Bairgania where claimant M/s. Shyam Trading Company is doing trading in clothes. In the light of relied upon case laws it cannot be held that there was any attempt to export seized clothes. Therefore, the department has failed to establish that the goods seized from truck were meant for illegal export to Nepal. - Decided in favour of appellants with consequential relief
-
2016 (5) TMI 500 - SUPREME COURT
Procedure for search, disposal or destruction of the narcotics and the remedial steps that need to be taken to plug the loopholes, if any. - Apex Court issued the directions as:
(1) No sooner the seizure of any Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and Controlled Substances and Conveyances is effected, the same shall be forwarded to the officer-in-charge of the nearest police station or to the officer empowered under Section 53 of the Act. The officer concerned shall then approach the Magistrate with an application under Section 52A(ii) of the Act, which shall be allowed by the Magistrate as soon as may be required under sub-section (3) of Section 52A, as discussed by us in the body of this judgment under the heading ‘seizure and sampling’. The sampling shall be done under the supervision of the Magistrate as discussed in Paras 13 and 14 of this order.
(2) The Central Government and its agencies and so also the State Governments shall within six months from today take appropriate steps to set up storage facilities for the exclusive storage of seized Narcotic Drugs and Psychotropic and Controlled Substances and Conveyances duly equipped with vaults and double locking system to prevent theft, pilferage or replacement of the seized drugs. The Central Government and the State Governments shall also designate an officer each for their respective storage facility and provide for other steps, measures as stipulated in Standing Order No. 1/89 to ensure proper security against theft, pilferage or replacement of the seized drugs.
(3) The Central Government and the State Governments shall be free to set up a storage facility for each district in the States and depending upon the extent of seizure and store required, one storage facility for more than one districts.
(4) Disposal of the seized drugs currently lying in the police maalkhana and other places used for storage shall be carried out by the DDCs concerned in terms of the directions issued by us in the body of this judgment under the heading ‘disposal of drugs’.
-
2016 (5) TMI 499 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Revocation of CHA licence and forfeiture of security deposit - Seizure of Red Sanders Wood Logs - alleged involvement in documentation in respect of consignment of Red Sanders Wood Logs attempted to be exported which is prohibited and not allowed for export - Held that:- it is absolutely clear that documents was forged and last page of declaration which appears the signature is not signed by the appellant or his partner for the purpose of clearance of Red Sanders Wood Logs. This made very clear that documents which is used for clearance of Red Sanders Wood Logs has not been signed by the appellant or his partner or any other authorized person. It is also apparent on record from the entire proceedings that the documents was forged which was submitted by Shri Shailesh Bhanushali on his own and who was not authorized to submit the documents. Even CMC staff has also made serious mistake in accepting the documents from an unauthorized person which resulted into serious offence of attempted smuggling. From enquiry and statement of Shri Parvez Irani, it clearly appears that Shri Shailesh Bhanushali on his personal capacity colluded with the exporters for clearing the Red Sanders Wood Logs and from entire modus operandi which he has adopted, it is found that appellant or his partner is nowhere concerned either in the preparation of the documents or submission thereof.
It is also found that there is allegation on the appellant for non-compliance of the Facility Notice No. 41 of 2009, dated 10-7-2009 and Public Notice No. 10/2010, dated 3-2-2010 according to which CHA is supposed to check and verify online the shipping bills filed in their name, so that if such forged shipping bill is filed, the same can be detected and smuggling of Red Sanders Wood Logs could be avoided. In this regard, we agree with submission of the appellant that at material time details of only those shipping bills which are filed online would be available. In the present case shipping bill was filed at the CMC for which Thoka Number is required without which CHA would not know that such shipping bill was filed, this because Customs House EDI system did not give the list of shipping bills which are filed at the Service Centre, only those shipping bills filed online get displayed on the system during the relevant period. Since the documents filed without knowledge of the appellant, the shipping bill has not been reflected in the system. This explanation given by the appellant was found satisfactory. Even if it is assumed that there is failure on the part of the appellant regarding non-compliance of facility notice and public notice that they have not checked filing of said Shipping Bills online, that alone does not suggest that appellant was involved in the documentation or in clearance of attempted smuggling of the goods.
The charges have been proved only on the basis of statement of Shri Shailesh Bhanushali which is unauthorized employee and he was not authorized to file any documents and the documents was also forged and there is no corroborative evidence to support the statement of Shri Shailesh Bhanushali. Moreover Shri Shailesh Bhanusftali has subsequently changed his statement in examination and re-examination that filing of forged documents to the CMC was not known to the appellant. Therefore, the appellant is nowhere involved in the alleged smuggling or submission of forged document related thereto or abetted to the said offence. The impugned order revoking the CHA Licence is not legal and proper. - Decided in favour of appellant
-
2016 (5) TMI 498 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Period of limitation - Refund claim - Filed beyond the time limit prescribed as per Notification No. 93/2008-Cus., dated 1-8-2008 - Held that:- it is observed that the appellant has filed refund claim under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus., dated 14-9-2007 wherein no time has been prescribed for filing refund claim. Therefore, the rejection of refund claim as time-barred is unsustainable and the impugned order is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant with consequential relief
-
2016 (5) TMI 441 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Refund claim - Import of water dispensers - Adjudicating authority in his order in original, had clearly stated that the appellant had paid excess duty and the entry 8418 covered only refrigerators and not water dispensers is an unassailable finding . The Adjudicating Authority had passed a reasoned and speaking order and in the first order passed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) in order, directed the Adjudicating Authority to consider the issue in terms of Section 27 of the Customs Act, which was also upheld by the Tribunal.
Held that:- the Assistant Commissioner in his order, had no other option except to decide the refund application. Based on such an order, the Assistant Commissioner has granted relief. The impugned order cannot be sustained for the reason that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has merely stated that the appellant has not challenged the assessment. In the absence of any ground on merit, that the classification arrived at by the Adjudicating Authority is erroneous, which has not been done in the instant case, the impugned order is liable to be set aside and the order passed by the Original Authority granting refund is restored. - Decided in favour of appellant
-
2016 (5) TMI 440 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Eligibility for duty drawback - Flanges manufactured by the process of forging and exported from the country - Not availed CENVAT in relation to the inputs used for manufacturing the Flanges - Petitioners contended that Flanges manufactured by them and exported during the period 10th December, 2002 to 6th April, 2003 are covered under SS No. 73.29 under Chapter 73 of the Table of Drawback Rates 2002-03 notified by Custom Notification No. 33/2002 (NT) as amended by Notification No. 80/2002 (NT) dated 10th December, 2002 and the Flanges exported by them after 6th April, 2003 till 30th June, 2003 are covered under SS 73.28 of the Table of Drawback Rates 2003-04 as notified by Notification No. 26/2003 (NT).
Held that:- insofar as exports made under shipping bills prior to the notification dated 1st April, 2003 are concerned, the Respondents are seeking to deny the benefits solely on the basis that the data related to the said products was not considered while fixing the All Industry Rates of duty drawback. Although, it was also mentioned that the Petitioners have not provided proof of payment of duties, the said line of argument was not pressed. Thus, the only question to be addressed in respect of claims made under the Drawback Schedule 2002-03 is whether the benefit of duty drawback could be denied to the Petitioners on the ground that the data relating to Flanges had not been provided by EEPC and, therefore, was not considered by the Central Government while fixing the All Industry Rates.
Insofar as the exports made under shipping bills after the Drawback Schedule 2003-04 was notified are concerned, the Respondents have sought to deny the benefit, additionally on the basis of the Corrigendum dated 13th May, 2003 issued by the Central Government. Thus, it is also necessary to consider whether the Central Government could rectify the notification dated 1st April, 2003 with retrospective effect by a public notice issued on 13th May, 2003. It cannot be disputed that the Flanges exported by the Petitioners conformed to the description as specified in SS 73.29 of Drawback Schedule 2002-03 and SS 73.28 of Drawback Schedule 2003- 04 inasmuch as, (i) the Flanges were manufactured from carbon steel; (ii) they were manufactured by the process of forging; and (iii) CENVAT credit on the inputs had not been claimed. Thus, the Petitioners would clearly be entitled to duty drawback at the notified rates in respect of the Flanges exported by them.
All Industry Rates for duty drawback as notified by the Central Government are in pursuance of the powers of delegated legislation conferred under Section 75 of the Act read with the Rules. The All Industry Rates of duty drawbacks as fixed by the Central Government are statutory. Thus, we find it difficult to accept that such statutory notifications could be whittled down or amended by an executive circular.
It is not open for a Court, while interpreting any statute, to examine the material which weighed with the authority while framing that law if the provisions of the statute are clear and unequivocal. The scope of the entries in question have to be interpreted on the plain language of the entries, if the same is unambiguous, and it is not open for a Court to interpret the entries in the light of data which may or may not be collected by the Central Government in framing those entries and fixing the All Industry Rates. In the present case, it is found that the language of the entries is clear and unequivocal and, thus, there is no room to attempt to discover the intention of the Central Government by taking recourse to any other external aid. Therefore, the clarification dated 8th April, 2003 has no statutory force. The express language of the Drawback Schedules as notified by Central Government in exercise of statutory powers cannot be diluted or whittled down by the letter dated 8th April, 2003 and, accordingly, the same is liable to be set aside.
It is well established that the devices of public notice or circulars cannot be adopted for modifying the substantive provisions of a statutory notification. Therefore, a benefit granted by a statutory notification cannot be withdrawn with retrospective effect and that too by a device of a public notice. The Petitioners, here, claim to have made exports and priced their shipments on the basis of the Drawback Schedules notified by the Central Government. Thus, the benefit of duty drawback cannot be denied to them.
Maintainability - Respondents submitted that this Court had no jurisdiction to entertain W.P.(C) inasmuch as the Petitioner therein had impugned two show cause notices of even date i.e. 20th June, 2003, which were issued by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, Ludhiana. Also the Petitioner was also located at Ludhiana and, therefore, no part of cause of action had arisen within the jurisdiction of this Court. Since the authority issuing the show cause notices was at Ludhiana, the cause of action for filing the petition lay entirely outside the territories of Delhi.
Held that:- although, there is merit in Respondent's contention that situs of passing a legislation would not give rise to a cause of action to file a writ petition challenging its validity. However, in the present case, the Petitioner has also impugned the letter dated 8th April, 2003 which is not in the nature of a legislative instrument but is an executive direction. Hence, it is apparent that a part of the cause of action has arisen within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. Consequently, we are unable to accept that the W.P.(C) is not maintainable. Hence, the Respondents are directed to process the Petitioners' claims for duty drawback in accordance with law. - Decided in favour of petitioner
-
2016 (5) TMI 439 - CESTAT BANGALORE
Admissibility of refund of redemption fine and penalty - Redemption fine and penalties have been paid by the appellant and not by the 11 importers, and technically speaking the TR-6 challans have been issued in the name of the 11 importers - Revenue submitted that in terms of the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, duty and interest, if any, paid on the goods can be claimed in a refund by any person who has paid or borne it.
Held that:- the order was passed against the importers (whether right or wrong) and the redemption fine and penalties were deposited by the importers by various TR-6 Challans in their name and the appeals were also filed by the importers before the Tribunal. Even before the Tribunal, the appellant never took a stand that redemption fine and penalties should not have been imposed upon them and the same should have been directed towards exporter of the goods. The appeal stands allowed on the merits of the case only. In such a scenario, the refund arising out of the said order of the Tribunal would be available to the importers only and the fact that whether the money for the said deposits were provided by the exporters or not, would make no difference.
Section 27 of the Customs Act which relates to the refund of any duty and interest paid by an assessee, in terms of an order of assessment relates to payment of duty and interest only and does not cover the redemption fine and penalties. As such even if the redemption fine and penalty amounts were provided by the appellant to the various importers for further deposit of the same with the Revenue, it has to be considered as an internal arrangement between the exporter and importers and filing of the refund of the same by the exporter, even though the amounts were deposited by the importers, cannot be held to be justifiable inasmuch as there is no provision in the Customs Act to find out as to who has actually provided money to the person depositing the same. The law recognizes only the importers and by setting aside the redemption fine and penalties imposed upon them, it is the importers only who are recognized by law for the purpose of refund of the amounts in question. Therefore, no reason to interfere in the impugned orders. - Decided against the appellant
-
2016 (5) TMI 438 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Imposition of penalty - Appellant submitted that he has resigned from M/s. Infocall Solutions Pvt. Ltd. on 4-7-2006 and is no way concerned with the activity of said company, therefore, penalty on the appellant is not imposable in the absence of any statement of appellant is recorded and moreover, no examination of the witnesses has been given to the appellant to impose penalty. - Section 112 of the Customs Act - Period of dispute is 8-2-2006 to 11-3-2006
Held that:- appellant has resigned from the assessee-company on 4-7-2006 although import took place before that date but no statement of the appellant has been recorded for imposition of penalty. Moreover, if statement of other persons have been relied upon, the cross-examination was required to be given to the appellant which is also not given. Hence, principle of natural justice has been violated by the adjudicating authority. Therefore, in the absence of any inculpatory statement of the appellant, penalty on the appellant is not imposable. Impugned order qua imposing penalty is set aside. - Decided in favour of appellant
-
2016 (5) TMI 437 - CALCUTTA HIGH COURT
Entitlement for refund of duty paid - Respondent submitted that since the goods were assessed provisionally and not finally and duty paid was in the nature of advance deposited, the prayer for refund cannot be within the scope and ambit of refund of duty - Held that:- it is evident that the appellant had filed the shipping bill declaring “that all particulars given herein are true and correct” and thus the goods were self-assessed. On the basis of the said bill duty was paid, shipments were allowed and the goods were exported. Therefore, as on the basis of the declaration, duty was paid by the appellant, the argument that the goods were provisionally assessed and the appellant is entitled to refund, is without substance. Moreover refund of duty was sought for after 6½ months. - Decided against the appellant
-
2016 (5) TMI 436 - SC ORDER
Seeking withdrawal of special leave petition - Misuse of Advance license – Goods diverted to domestic market - High Court held that even though personal hearing was granted twice to appellant, appellant did not appear before Authorities, hence no error found in order of Tribunal ordering pre-deposit. Adjudicating Authority has considered involvement of appellant in illegal import of goods by indulging in act of misusing advance licence and evading customs duty on imported goods reported in [2015 (9) TMI 456 - MADRAS HIGH COURT] - Apex Court granted the permission to the petitioner to withdraw the petition and disposed of special leave petition as withdrawn.
|
