|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 118 Records
-
2016 (7) TMI 1685
Maintainability of petition - permission to petitioner to file documents before the Additional Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Mumbai - HELD THAT:- The writ petition can be disposed of at this stage by permitting the petitioner to file documents before the Additional Director, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), Mumbai, within eight weeks hence. Thereafter, the said authority shall intimate the petitioner so that the petitioner can appear and explain and answer the queries of the authorities.
Petition disposed off.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1628
Refund claim - seizure of currency and watches - HELD THAT:- The appellant shall be entitled to refund of 50% of the seized amount and the watches seized by the respondent within four weeks hence, subject to an undertaking filed before the Registry of this Court within ten days that if the appeal fails, the appellant shall make good the dues along with interest.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1611
Seeking unconditional release of imported goods - non-issuance of SCN within the mandatory time limit in terms of Section 110(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The Court is constrained to observe that there was no occasion for multiplicity of proceedings arising from the order dated 2nd June 2016 passed by this Court. If the Customs Department was aggrieved by any portion of that order, it could have proceeded to seek whatever remedies were available to it in accordance with law. There being no challenge to that order, the Department was bound to comply with it in letter and spirit - the Court directs that, in immediate compliance of its order dated 2nd June 2016, the goods in question shall be released to the Petitioner by the Customs Department unconditionally to the Petitioner through its authorized representative who will appear before the Deputy Commissioner of Customs at 11 am on 23rd July 2016. The Petitioner will furnish to the Deputy Commissioner Customs an undertaking by way of affidavit to fully cooperate in any proceedings that may be commenced under Section 124 of CA.
List on 29th August 2016.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1521
Suspension of CHA License - regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 - suspension on the ground of failure to obtain authorisation from importer, failure to advise the importer to comply with the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and failure to verify the antecedents of importer, the last was not proved but the other two were - HELD THAT:- The proceedings were initiated under the erstwhile Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 and completed under Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2013; both these Regulations prescribe a schedule for completion of the proceedings and for each intermediate stage.
The inquiry report is to be submitted within six months of receipt of offence report and decision on revocation passed within another three months thereafter. We find that thirty months have elapsed between the incident and submission of report of inquiry officer. There is no evidence of contributory negligence on the part of the appellant in this delay. The revocation order was itself passed more than seven months after submission of the inquiry report. Besides the delay on the part of the Commissioner, there has been an inordinate and unexplained delay in the entire proceedings from the beginning to the end.
The relationship between the customs broker and licensing authority is a statutory one. While the authority is not employer of the brokers, the brokers themselves are dependent upon the licence for their livelihood, as well as that of their dependents and their employees. Considering the relationship, though certainly not one of master-servant, revocation of a licence has as grave consequences as that of dismissal of an employee in an organisation. Accordingly, the sanctity of procedure and adherence to principles of natural justice can be no less, rigorous than that prescribed for disciplinary proceedings.
The Regulations prescribe strict adherence to time-lines and, in the event of non-compliance, the proceedings stand vitiated - the restoration of licence of the appellant is directed with immediate effect.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1451
Valuation - Claim of exemption on import of software - the decision in the case of M/S. BHAGYANAGAR METALS LTD, SHRI NARENDERSURANA, MD, SHRI BALASUBRAMANIAN, VP, M/S. SURANA TELECOM LTD, SHRI BALASUBRAMANIAN, VP, M/S LG ELECTRONICS, M/S. HUAWAI TECHNOLOGIES CO LTD VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CENTRAL EXCISE, HYDERABAD-II, CCE, GOA [2016 (2) TMI 614 - CESTAT HYDERABAD] contested - Held that:- The appeal is admitted - To be heard along with Civil Appeal No. 7613 of 2014.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1434
Maintainability of appeal - Section 129A of CA, 1962 - Recovery of Drawback - Held that: - as per the provisions of Section 129A, if appeal relates to payment of drawback as provided under Chapter X and rules made thereunder, and where the order was passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), the same is not appealable before this Tribunal - the payment of drawback also includes the recovery of drawback - appeal not maintainable and is dismissed.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1414
Notified CFS - Cost of recovery charges post March, 2010 - Whether the appellant is entitled for exemption from payment of cost recovery charges for March, 2010 or not? - Whether the appellant can be held responsible for non-payment of cost recovery charges when no calculation was made by the Revenue?
Held that: - the CFS is required to pay the cost recovery charges at rate and manner specified by the Ministry. As, no manner or rate has been prescribed under the regulation or any other way subsequent to the regulation, in that circumstance, we are of the view that cost recovery charges cannot be demanded from the appellant.
As the appellant has already achieved the bench mark performance within the initial two years and there is no provision as per Regulation, 2009, therefore, to recover the cost of charges from the appellant the demand cannot be made against the appellant for the cost recovery charges with effect from 1-3-2010.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1412
Confiscation of export goods - penalty u/s 114 - it was alleged that Instead of exporting the goods manufactured out of ‘acrylic waste’, the appellant manufactured ‘sliver/carded web’ out of polyester procured locally - Held that: - Section 113(d) of Customs Act, 1962 can be invoked to confiscate the export goods. The export is allowable against free shipping bills. The goods could have been denied the privilege of fulfilment of export obligation which would have sufficient for any action to be taken on import goods - penalty also set aside - appeal allowed.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1411
Export of Basmati Rice - permission to export rice as per Col. No. 5 Entry No. 45A Chapter 10 (Cereals) of Export Licensing Schedule inserted by DGFT Notification No. 39 (Re-2008)2004-2009, dated 16-9-2009, under the Export Policy 2004-09 as amended - Held that: - basmati rice has been allowed freely for export in terms of DGFT Notification No. 39 (RE-2008)/2004-09, dated 16-9-2008 in Sr. No. 45AA - There is no dispute that the export goods have satisfied the condition specified for export as above - both the samples were tested in the Regional Agmark Laboratory. The percentage of other rice grain was found to be over 23% in both the samples, which were considered to be beyond the permissible limit for export by the authority below.
After considering the N/N. 39 (RE-2008)/2004-09, dated 16-9-2008, the Agmark Specification for basmati rice for export has not been specified as a restriction in the said notification. The question whether the Customs Authority allowing the export consignment of basmati rice was required to examine the same with reference to DGFT Notification only or they also need to look at Agmark Specifications, was examined in detail by the Tribunal in the case of Shree Jagdamba Agrico Export Pvt. Ltd. v. C.C., Kandla [2014 (6) TMI 301 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD]. The Tribunal held that the Customs Authority cannot import the conditions from Agmark standards but has to allow export on the basis of the notification issued by DGFT.
Inasmuch as the DGFT restrictions prescribed in Notification No. 39 (RE-2008)/2004-09, dated 16-9-2008 have been satisfied, there is no justification to order confiscation of the export goods under Section 113 of the Customs Act and also to impose the penalty under Section 114.
Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1383
Condonation of delay of 311 days in filing appeal - the decision in the case of M/s COASTAL ENERGY PVT LTD AND OTHERS Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CENTRAL EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX [2014 (8) TMI 246 - CESTAT BANGALORE] contested - Held that: - There is a delay of 311 days in filing the appeal for which no proper explanation is given by the learned counsel for the appellant - delay cannot be condoned - COD Application dismissed
-
2016 (7) TMI 1381
Import of Nylon Filament Yarn - Denial of Exemption form CVD under Notification No. 6/2002-CE dated 01.03.2002 - the decision in the case of M/s SRF Ltd., M/s ITC Ltd Versus Commissioner of Customs, Chennai, Commissioner of Customs (Import And General) , New Delhi [2015 (4) TMI 561 - SUPREME COURT] contested, where it was held that appellants were entitled to exemption from payment of CVD in terms of Notification No. 6/02 - Held that: - there are no error, much less apparent error, in the order impugned - review petition dismissed.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1379
Valuation - Misdeclaration - Undervaluation - violation of the principles of natural justice - decision in the case of M/s DJP International Versus C.C. (ICD) , New Delhi [2015 (10) TMI 496 - CESTAT NEW DELHI] contested, where it was held that Proprietor of the appellant having admitted to the valuation and having forgone the requirement of a show cause notice or personal hearing. It is pertinent to mention here that the said voluntary statement of the proprietor was never retracted and even during the proceedings before Commissioner (Appeals) the plea that the statement was taken under duress was not taken - Held that: - the decision in the above case upheld - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1368
Bail application - Smuggling - foreign origin Cigarettes - Held that: - no good ground has been made out by the learned counsel for the applicant for enlarging the applicant on bail - The applicant along with other co-accused persons were actively involved in smuggling the foreign origin cigarettes in contravention of Custom Act, thus, the bail application of the applicant has rightly been rejected - bail application rejected.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1367
Smuggling - foreign origin cigarettes - Bail application - Held that: - without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, let the applicant Waseem Ahmad, involved in case No.01 of 2015, under Sections 135, 135(1)(b) of Customs Act, police station D.R.I. Noida, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court - bail application allowed subject to compliance of conditions imposed.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1366
Bail application - smuggling - foreign origin cigarettes - Held that: - without expressing any opinion on the merit of the case, let the applicant Nazim Ali Khan, involved in complaint case No.01 of 2015, under Sections132, 135(1)(A), 135(1)(B) of Customs Act, police station D.R.I. Noida, be released on bail on his furnishing a personal bond and two local sureties each of the like amount to the satisfaction of court concerned - applicant to be released on bail on fulfillment of conditions imposed - bail application allowed.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1336
High Seas Sale - purchase of Raw Cashew Nuts - it is the stand of the petitioner that the title of the goods was on the basis of ‘Bill of Ladings’ carrier documents vested with the first respondent/writ petitioner and after the High Sea Sale Agreement, the title of goods transfers to their Firm and prior to the entry of goods in the territorial jurisdiction of India, etc - Held that: - the fifth respondent proceeds to take a plea that although the first respondent/writ petitioner and the petitioner/proposed sixth respondent’s claims that the ‘Bill of Ladings’ were issued in their name, they were not able to produce the same either before the investigating officer, East Police Station, Kollam or before this Court. Also that the first respondent/writ petitioner had not established high right over the goods in issue, as the Bill of Lading does not reflect its name, as the consignee. The petitioner/proposed sixth respondent if at all can make any claim, it can be done only against the first respondent/writ petitioner and that too, by means of a separate civil proceedings - the petitioner cannot implead as proposed sixth respondent in the main writ petition - petition dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1298
Grant of refund with interest - whether the amount deposited as pre-deposit entitled to refund even without formal application or not? - Held that: - Circular No.275/37/2KCX. 8A dated 2/1/2002, clearly indicates that the amount received u/s 35F has to be given as refund even without a formal application. The provisions u/s 129E is in pari materia with the provision under Section 35F - This is a case in which amount had been deposited under protest during the pendency of the appeal and the petitioner is entitled to refund - petition allowed - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1296
Refund claim - rejection on account of time bar - Held that: - the refund has not been filed within 6 months of date of final assessment or within one year of payment of duty. Hence, the time limit of neither the Section 27 nor the notification dated 1.8.2008 has been adhered to in this case - refund claim rightly rejected - appeal dismissed - decided against assessee.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1274
Delivery of documents seized by respondents - the case of petitioner is that at present, he has received total 192 files and 16 files are still with them and due to the aforesaid, he is not in a position to file his reply to the show cause notice or appear before the appropriate authority - respondents take the stand that the petitioner has deliberately adopted dilatory tactics to delay the quasi judicial proceedings initiated vide SCN dated 10-4-2014. Petitioner has adopted a unique modus operandi and by taking a plea of non-receipt of few documents, which are of no relevance to the present case - Held that: - no case for issuance of any direction, as prayed in this writ petition is made out - writ petition has no merit and is accordingly, dismissed - decided against petitioner.
-
2016 (7) TMI 1273
Imposition of penalty - the decision in the case of Commissioner of Cus., Mangalore Versus Jindal Vijayanagar Steel Ltd. [2011 (8) TMI 1261 - KARNATAKA HIGH COURT] referred, where it was held that payment of differential duty made by the assessee before or after issuance of show cause notice does not alter liability for penalty and the imposition of penalty is mandatory if the conditions are satisfied - Held that: - there is no error in the impugned order which warrants our interference - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
........
|
