|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 121 to 140 of 181 Records
-
2016 (9) TMI 472 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Conversion of shipping bill – free shipping bill – export promotion shipping bill - export of Poly Tube Graphite Heat Exchanger - Board's Circular No.36/2010 dt. 23.9.2010 - Section 149 of the Customs Act, 1962 – time limit for conversion of shipping bill – Held that: - the appellant is a manufacturer-exporter and obtained valid Advance Authorisation issued by the authorities concerned – matter remanded to the learned Commissioner to reconsider and re-examine the request of the appellant for conversion of free shipping bill into Advance Authorisation shipping bill on merits, without going into the aspect of limitation, after proper verification of all the documents that are alleged to be placed before that authority – opportunity of heard granted to appellant and appellant are also permitted to file additional documents to substantiate their claim - matter remanded – appeal disposed off.
-
2016 (9) TMI 471 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Rejection of declared value by customs - import of high speed steel tape - Rule 8 of Customs Valuation (Determination of Value of Export Goods) Rules, 2007 – opinion sought by chartered engineer – Confiscation of consignments and levy of penalty - Held that: - though enhancement of value is found to be sustainable, it is clear that there is no malafide or mensrea on the part of the appellant, when it declared the value in the Customs documents and the enhancement of value is the result of the legal provisions regarding determination of the assessable value for the customs purposes – confiscation and penalty set aside – enhancement of value upheld – appeal allowed – decided partly in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (9) TMI 470 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Chargeability of interest – warehoused goods – private bonded warehouse – interest free period of 180 days - the notification No. 23/2001-Cus(NT) dated 22/5/2001,issued, effective from 1/6/2001, the interest was chargeable after expiry of bond period of 30 days – interest chargeable on over and above 30 days or 180 days? – Held that: - the goods were warehoused prior to issue of Notification No. 23/2001-Cus(NT) during that time the statue has mandated interest free bonding period of 180 days. Under that provision the appellant has executed the bond and warehoused the goods. Though the Notification No. 23/2001-Cus reduced period of 180 days to 30 days w.e.f. 1/6/2001 but goods which already warehoused prior to that date, will not be governed by amended notification, particularly for the reason that the period of 180 days provided under statue was not curtailed by this statue. Notification will have prospective effect - appellant are entitled for the interest free period of 180 days in respect of goods warehoused prior to 1/6/2001, cleared for home consumption thereafter – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (9) TMI 469 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Classification of imported goods – clearance of ‘Liquid Crystal Display’ for energy meters i.e. LCDs - Customs Tariff Heading 90138010 or CTH 90289010 as parts of ‘energy meters’ – exemption from BCD under notification 24/2005-Cus Sr. No. 29 - Held that: - the decision has been taken based on the case Secure Meters Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi [2004 (4) TMI 108 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI]. It was held that the correct classification is under Customs Tariff Heading 90138010. Thus, benefit of exemption from BCD available – appeal allowed – decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (9) TMI 468 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Confiscation of goods – section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 – denial of DEPB – imposition of penalty - Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 – attempt to export Alprazolam tablets without NOC as obtained by Narcotic Commissioner, Gwalior – statutory obligation to produce NOC – Held that: - It is surprised that when NOC is required which is known to the Appellant exporter as they themselves applied for the same, then why the same was not informed to Custom/CHA. This clearly shows the mala fide intention on the part of appellant. Though the appellant applied for NOC but it was a futile exercise as they did not have importer country’s permit for said Narcotic Drug without which, CBN can not issue NOC – malafide intention on the part of appellant – confiscation of goods, denial of DEPB and penalty under section 114(i) justified.
Mis-declaration of goods – imposition of penalty – section 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962 – Held that: - there is no mis-declaration on the part of appellant exporter either in respect of description of goods or value – penalty not imposed.
Imposition of penalty – CHA – involvement of CHA in the attempt to export the goods without NOC – Held that: - no mis-declaration found on the part of CHA. It was the client who suppressed the fact of NOC not from custom but also from CHA. On pointing out by the custom regarding NOC for Alprazolam tablet, the CHA immediately informed their client – no fault on the part of CHA – penalty not imposed on CHA – appeal decided in favor of CHA.
-
2016 (9) TMI 467 - CESTAT AHMEDABAD
Confiscation of consignment – option to redeem on payment of redemption fine – mis-declaration - yarn waste - polyester sewing thread – examination of consignment – admitted by the appellant that consignment of polyester sewing thread sent to appellant without his knowledge – a strenuous attempt to differentiate the contents of 160 jumbo poly bags with that of in 530 corrugated Boxes – Held that: - the Appellant had mis-declared the imported goods as ‘polyester yarn waste’, whereas, in fact, they imported new sewing threads which were ready for sale. The proprietor of the Appellant nowhere disputed the test result that the goods imported were not polyester sewing thread but waste yarn as declared by them. Further, on chemical examination, the goods were certified in both the cases as sewing thread other than waste yarn. Also, the Appellant has failed to produce the evidence to justify their case that the contents of 160 jumbo poly bags were Yarn Waste - the determination of assessable value by the Department on the basis of market enquiry found correct while the sales invoices submitted by the Appellant rejected – appeal disposed off – decided against appellant.
-
2016 (9) TMI 466 - CESTAT CHENNAI
Valuation - Direction to pay 1% of EDD of the invoice value - Valuation – import from related overseas firm – whether the Commissioner (Appeals) while remanding the appeal has power to direct the lower authority to put pre-condition to decide the case in de novo - Held that: - the portion of the Commissioner (Appeals) order directing 1% EDD is set aside following the judgement of the case Terumo Penpol Ltd. Vs. CC 2015 (6) TMI 500 - MADRAS HIGH COURT. Thus, commisioner (appeals) cannot put pre-condition to decide the case in de novo as that would prejudice the mind of the original authority while deciding the issue – decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (9) TMI 417 - SUPREME COURT
Recommendations on the maintenance of minimum distance in customs area - between hazardous cargo and general cargo - between hazardous cargo and administrative buildings - Circular No.40/2016-Customs - Held that: - clarification issued that the Circular No.40/2016-Customs may be treated as laying down the prescribed guidelines, for safety and security, across the Board, for maintaining distance, between hazardous cargo and general cargo, as also, hazardous cargo and administrative buildings in the customs area, and elsewhere, subject to one overriding condition, that the same would be subject to any statutory provision(s) expressly provided for the distance to be maintained in such matters - petition disposed off - application for intervention disposed off - all pending applications disposed off.
-
2016 (9) TMI 416 - CESTAT NEW DELHI
Refund claim - Import of 8 consignments of ferrite magnets - importer did not claim the benefit of Notification No. 12/2012 in the Bill of Entry so filed by them which came to be finally assessed by the proper officer of the Customs, without considering the applicability or otherwise of the said notification - whether in such facts and circumstances, the non-challenge to the Bill of Entry would be considered as a bar for claiming refund - Held that:- such a situation has already been considered by Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Aman Medical Products Ltd. vs. CC, Delhi [2009 (9) TMI 41 - DELHI HIGH COURT] with which we are bound. Therefore, we are of the view that Commissioner (Appeals) has rightly followed the Delhi High Court decision and has rightly held in favour of the respondent. We find no justifiable reason to interfere in the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals). - Decided against the Revenue
-
2016 (9) TMI 415 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Confiscation of seized currencies - section 113 (d), (e) and (h) of the Customs Act, 1962 - imposition of penalty - Section 114 (i) of the Customs Act, 1962 - undeclared currencies - prohibited goods - section 2 (33) - FERA Act - Held that: - it is established that appellant attempted to export by carrying himself as passenger, foreign and Indian currencies without declaration to the Customs authority and without permission from RBI - the same undoubtedly liable for confiscation.
Option to pay redemption fine in lieu of confiscation - Section 125 of the Customs act, 1962 - Held that: - it is the discretion vested in the authority whether to allow redemption of confiscated goods on payment of fine or otherwise. The appellant admittedly tried to mislead the officers, investigating the case. The appellant at every stage given wrong statement about source of currencies. As per RBI and FEMA provision export of currencies is subject to approvals and permission. Therefore attempt of export of currencies without such approvals/permissions lead to confiscation - looking to the conduct of the appellant and nature of the offence, the denial of grant of option to appellant is justified.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2016 (9) TMI 414 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Refund claim – demand – part amount paid during investigation process – matter appealed to tribunal– refund of amount claimed before original authority, where it was held that the demand was immature as case not decided yet - having the case decided by the tribunal do appellant require to file fresh refund claim ? – Held that: - the appellant had filed refund claim in respect of deposit made during the investigation. Therefore, the sanctioning authority should not have held that the refund is premature, whereas he was supposed to pass a reasoned adjudication order – no fresh claim required to be filed – matter remanded to original authority for reasoned and speaking order – appeal disposed off.
-
2016 (9) TMI 413 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Refund claim - Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962 – time-bar - duty under protest in respect of some Bills of Entry not paid – Held that: - it is not in dispute that irrespective of any type of record in the department, the register by whatever name it is called, the protest was recorded. Therefore, there is no dispute that the duty payment made by the respondent is under protest. It is settled legal position that in case of refund arising out of the order settling the demand matter, a period of one year for filing refund is available from the date of the said order – refund claim not hit by limitation – appeal disposed off – decided against Revenue.
-
2016 (9) TMI 412 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Refund - classification - press tool dies - heading 82.05 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - heading 84.45/48 of the First Schedule to the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - CVD - tariff item 51A - tariff item 68 - manufacture of jeeps - supply of tools and dies by overseas entity - Held that: - the heading 8205 turns on the expression ‘interchangeable’. Here a peculiar situation arises. While the Tribunal in Purewall & Associates Ltd v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1983 (10) TMI 254 - CEGAT BOMBAY] interpreted the expression to mean multiple usage of the ‘die/tool’ and guided many subsequent decisions, the Tribunal in Bajaj Auto Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, Bombay [1994 (8) TMI 127 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI] holds that Purewall & Associates was decided, without reference of Explanatory Notes, merely to examine the scope of heading 8205 beyond hand tools - the conflict on the meaning of ‘interchangeable’ requires resolution not merely for expediency but as an unavoidable necessity - matter to be placed before the Hon’ble President for reference to a Larger Bench to resolve whether the decision of the Tribunal in re Purewall & Associates Ltd is the correct proposition of law or that of the view expressed in re Bajaj Auto Ltd.
-
2016 (9) TMI 411 - CESTAT MUMBAI
Unconditional release of the attached properties – restoration of appeals – pre-deposit for hearing of appeal - Held that: - the appeal in respect of which amount of pre-deposit has been deposited by the appellant, the restoration has been granted.
For the Order dated 11.8.2014 passed by the Hon’ble High Court in a challenge to the said common order dated 23.7.2013 against the same applicants, inclination shown towards restoration of those remaining appeals for hearing them on merits in respect of which the amounts directed vide earlier Order dated 3.1.2007 are already paid, but subject to payment of total cost of ₹ 1,00,000/- within one week from receipt of this Order. Upon reporting compliance of the same on expiry of one week, these appeals bearing nos. C/790/06, C/794/06, C/791/06, C/793/06, C/795/06 and C/787/06 shall stand restored and recovery under the said Orders-in-original qua the concerned appellants would remain stayed till final disposal of the appeals.
In respect of the remaining applications for restoration of appeals, where the applicants have only shown their willingness to make the payment, but have not yet deposited the amounts directed vide earlier Order dated 3.1.2007, appeals are not restored. Liberty granted to them to apply for restoration only after making payment of the amount directed to be deposited under Order dated 3.1.2007.These remaining applications concerning Appeal nos. C/784/06, C/788/06, C/786/06 and C/789/06 are thus dismissed with this liberty.
Since all the appeals are restored subject to above payment of cost, immediately upon producing proof of payment of cost as above, the attachment of the properties would be lifted within one week of producing the proof of payment of cost.
All applications disposed off.
-
2016 (9) TMI 361 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS
Procurement and import of technical equipment on lease - classification - Chapter 85 of First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Chapter 90 of First Schedule of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 - Whether the applicant is eligible to claim the exemption under Notification No. 27/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002 as amended by Notification No. 27/2008-Cus dated 01.03.2008 under the category of temporary import of leased goods? - Held that: - the benefit of Notification No. 27/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002, as amended by Notification No. 27/2008-Cus dated 01.03.2008 can be extended provided all the conditions satisfied as mentioned in the notification - the applicant satisfying all the conditions and is eligible to claim the exemption under Notification No. 27/2002-Cus dated 01.03.2002, as amended by Notification No. 27/2008- Cus dated 01.03.2008 under the category of temporary import of leased goods.
Valuation - declared value - book value - depreciated value - Held that: - It is clearly mentioned in CBEC Circular No. 25/2015-Cus that value declared by the importer has to be examined with report of Chartered Engineer as also with the depreciated value arrived in terms of said CBEC Circular dated 19.11.1987. In case, there are significant differences from such comparison, proper officer of Customs will seek explanation from the importer for justification of declared value. If proper officer is not satisfied with said justification of the importer, he may proceed to determine the value under Rule 9 ibid.
-
2016 (9) TMI 360 - SUPREME COURT
Refund of SAD - goods imported from Nepal - Notification No. 124/2000 amending the earlier Notification No. 37/96 and enlarging the scope of exemption from basic customs duty by including SAD - retrospective effect of amendment - exemption from customs, excise duty and also SAD - rates of SAD rectified - Held that: - The exemption which was granted by notification dated 29th September, 2000 was, therefore, in the nature of specific and new exemption from payment of special additional duty, which was otherwise payable in view of the introduction of Section 3A to the Tariff Act. It is difficult to appreciate that the exemption granted vide notification dated 20th September, 2000 to special additional duty was clarificatory or to give effect to the existing protocol. We think so as protocol appended to the Treaty could not have conceived of future levy by way of proposition. In any case, factually it does not. Therefore, the notification of 20th September, 2000 conferred a new benefit which was not earlier stipulated or the subject matter of protocol.
The reliance on the decision of the case Ralson India Limited v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Chandigarh [2015 (4) TMI 74 - SUPREME COURT] do not asset the case of assessee.
It cannot be also said the issue of notification was a formal ministerial act which got delayed for administrative reasons. It was a conscious act and a deliberate decision which came into existence after due deliberation when it was decided to grant exemption under Section 3A of the Tariff Act.
Appeal dismissed - decided against appellant.
-
2016 (9) TMI 359 - MADRAS HIGH COURT
Implementation of the order as passed by Commissioner (Appeals-I) and Release of gold chain - absolute confiscation of gold jewel - Commissioner (Appeals-I) held that the petitioner is entitled to the option of redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. However, while giving the option of redemption, the Commissioner (Appeals-I) passed a conditional order by virtue of which the petitioner had to pay a fine of ₹ 90,000/- and pay personal penalty of ₹ 25,000/- order not followed after lapse of several months - Held that: - as long as the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I) has not been modified, the petitioner being beneficiary of the said order is entitled to get back the jewel on compliance of the conditions imposed by the Appellate Authority within reasonable time. The order was passed by the Commissioner (Appeals-I) on 28.09.2015 and inspite of lapse of several months, till date nothing worthwhile has transpired in the review application. That apart, there is no interim order staying the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) - fourth respondent to return the jewel in question subject to the petitioner paying the fine and personal penalty as ordered by the Commissioner (Appeals-I) and executing a bond to produce the jewel back to the Department, in the event, the revision petition filed by the department before the revisional authority is allowed - petition dispose off - decided in favor of petitioner.
-
2016 (9) TMI 358 - DELHI HIGH COURT
Confiscation of goods - section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 - option to pay redemption fine - section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 - demand of duty and interest - Section 61(2) of the Act read with Section 72(b) of the Act - imposition of penalty - section 112 of the act - Extension of warehousing period - Section 61(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 - B/E Nos. 1 and 2 - confiscated goods vesting to the Central Government - Section 126 of the Act - auction of the goods - Held that: - payment of duty, interest and penalty made belatedly but before auction process. the Court permits the Department to encash the DD deposited by the auction purchaser, release the goods imported thereunder to the auction purchaser and issue the requisite sale confirmation. This is subject to the Department abiding by the further directions that may be issued by the Court at the time of disposal of this petition. It is made clear that GIL would have no right to seek the return of the aforementioned goods that are handed over to the auction purchaser.
As far as B/E No.3 is concerned, the appeal preferred by GIL against the Order-in-Original dated 30th December 2014 is stated to be pending before the CCA. In terms of the Circular No. 711/4/2006 dated 14th February 2006 issued by the CBEC, the Department had to seek the permission of the CCA before proceeding with the auction. Accordingly, the Court directs status quo in respect of the auction of the confiscated goods covered by B/E No. 3 to be maintained till such time the CCA passes appropriate orders in relation thereto.
Petition to be placed before the Hon’ble the Chief Justice for being listed before a Larger Bench
-
2016 (9) TMI 357 - CESTAT KOLKATA
Refund of excess CVD paid - arithmetical error - requirement of reassessed bill of entry - certificate from chartered accountant regarding unjust enrichment - Held that: - non filing or late filing of appeal against the original assessment on the bill of entry is not relevant and appellant can challenge the assessment by way of a refund application - an opportunity of personal hearing should be extended to the appellant by AC Refunds to explain their case. Appellant shall demonstrate before AC refunds that higher CVD paid in the first assessment was only due to clerical mistake based on documentary evidence - Department is also at liberty to examine the aspect of unjust enrichment - matter remanded - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
-
2016 (9) TMI 319 - AUTHORITY FOR ADVANCE RULINGS
Claim of exemption from SAD under Section 3(5) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1962 – import of pre-packaged goods and sale thereafter - The thrust of submissions made by Revenue is that the conditions contained in Notification No. 21/2012-Cus dated 17.03.2012 are not satisfied in respect of the goods proposed to be imported by the applicant, therefore, goods cannot be exempted from additional duty of Customs (SAD) levied under Section 3 (5) of the Customs Tariff Act. – Held that: - to get benefit of exemption applicant need to satisfy two conditions of Notification No. 21/2012-Cus. namely declaration of the State of destination where goods are intended to be taken immediately after importation and declaration of His VAT registration No. or Sales Tax registration No. or Central Sales tax registration No., as the case may be in said State – the applicant satisfies both the conditions mentioned above.
As the pre-packaged commodities in this case are covered by Chapter II of said Rules i.e. provisions applicable to packages intended for retail sale, the same should also satisfy all conditions regarding declarations to be made on every package, as per Rule 6 including sub-rule (e) regarding declaring the RSP of the package. As pre packaged goods to be imported would have declaration of RSP on them, this condition is also met.
Applicant is eligible to claim the benefit of exemption from payment of SAD under Notification No. 21/2012-Cus on import of pre-packaged goods.
....
|
