Home Case Index All Cases Customs SC Customs - SC 2017 2017 2017 (8) 2017 (8) SC Customs - 2017 (8) Customs - 2017 (8) TMI SC This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Customs - Supreme Court - Case Laws

Showing 1 to 3 of 3 Records

More information of case laws are visible to the Subscriber of a package i.e:-
Party Name, Court Name, Date of Decision, Full Text of Headnote and Decision etc.

• 2017 (8) TMI 1462
  

  Liability to pay demurrage charges - whether relief of non-payment of charges should have been restricted till 15-1-2015? - Held that:- The proceedings were pending before the High Court from 15-1-2015 till 14-10-2015. It is during the pendency of these proceedings and in the absence of any interim order passed by the High Court allowing the appellant to clear the goods, it was not possible for the appellant to clear those goods. In these circumstances, we are of the opinion that the High Court should have held that no charges towards any rent or demurrage are payable till the date of the judgment of the High Court instead of 15-1-2015.

  The ends of justice would be subserved by directing that no demurrage charges or rent is payable on the aforesaid goods by the appellant to respondent No. 4. At the same time, respondent No. 4 would be entitled to auction those goods and whatever money is received as a result of that auction, can be appropriated by respondent No. 4.

  Appeal disposed off.

  ---

• 2017 (8) TMI 684
  

  Import of gold and diamond jewellery items - Baggage Rules - passing through the Green Channel - Smuggling - Whether the items are personal effects and no duty is leviable on the same - whether in the present facts and circumstances of the case, the show-cause notice dated 12.12.2002 and order dated 14.08.2003 are liable to be quashed or not? - Held that: - the respondent herein did not violate the provisions of Section 77 of the Act since the necessary declaration was made by the respondent while passing through the Green Channel. Such declarations are deemed to be implicit and devised with a view to facilitate expeditious and smooth clearance of the passenger. Further, as per the International Convention on the Simplification and Harmonization of Customs Procedures (Kyoto 18.05.1973), a passenger going through the green channel is itself a declaration that he has no dutiable or prohibited articles.

  A harmonious reading of Rule 7 of the Baggage Rules, 1998 read with Appendix E (2), the respondent was not carrying any dutiable goods because the goods were the bona fide jewellery of the respondent for her personal use and was intended to be taken out of India. Also, with regard to the proximity of purchase of jewellery, all the jewellery was not purchased a few days before the departure of the respondent from UK, a large number of items had been in use for a long period. It did not make any difference whether the jewellery is new or used. There is also no relevance of the argument that since all the jewellery is to be taken out of India, it was, therefore, deliberately brought to India for taking it to Singapore. Foreign tourists are allowed to bring into India jewellery even of substantial value provided it is meant to be taken out of India with them and it is a pre-requisite at the time of making endorsements on the passport. Therefore, bringing jewellery into India for taking it out with the passenger is permissible and is not liable to any import duty.

  Also, from the present facts and circumstances of the case, it cannot be inferred that the jewellery was meant for import into India on the basis of return ticket which was found to be in the possession of the respondent. Moreover, we cannot ignore the contention of the respondent that her parents at the relevant time were in Indonesia and she had plans of proceeding to Indonesia. Some of the jewellery items purchased by the respondent were for her personal use and some were intended to be left with her parents in Indonesia.

  In the absence of any facts on record about the nature and mode of concealment and also any finding of the lower authority that jewellery was kept in a way to evade detection on examination of the baggage, it has to be held that there was no concealment as such. It is seen that the respondent chose the Green Channel for clearance of her baggage. She committed no violation of law or infraction of any instruction for clearance of the baggage through the green channel as she being a tourist had no dutiable goods to declare under the Baggage Rules - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant-Revenue.

  ---

• 2017 (8) TMI 348
  

  Confiscation - penalty - misdeclaration of imported goods - It was further alleged in the SCN that the importers mentioned in the Bill of Entry were mere name-lenders and not the real persons who had made the imports - Held that: - there is lack of conclusive proof with regard to actual identification of ball bearings - the Revenue had failed to prove the presence of ball bearings in the two consignments covered by the aforesaid two Bill of Entries.

  The entire findings of the learned Tribunal including the liability imposed on the aforesaid two persons, which have not been challenged by them before this Court, is on a pure appreciation of the evidence and materials on record. The learned Tribunal being the last forum for determination of questions of fact and no perversity in the appreciation of the materials being discernible from the order of the learned Tribunal, we do not see how these appeals can be scrutinized any further. Neither do we find any substantial question of law in the appeals which would require to be authoritatively answered by this Court. We, therefore, do not find the order of the learned Tribunal to be, in anyway, open to correction.

  Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

  ---

1