Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India. Com TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Acts / Rules Notifications Circulars Tariff/ ITC HSN Forms Case Laws Manuals Short Notes Articles SMS News Highlights
        Home        
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s. DOVES INTERNATIONAL Versus UNION OF INDIA, SUPERINTENDENT OF CUSTOMS (SIIB) , & COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

2015 (9) TMI 85 - KERALA HIGH COURT

Import of arecanut - Benefit of concessional rate under Notification No.26/2000 Release of goods Petitioner was denied benefit of concessional rate of duty Respondent-2 directed petitioner to comply with certain conditions for provisional release of consignments of arecanut, that were imported by petitioner Petitioner is aggrieved by condition requiring payment of 35% of differential duty, stipulated as one of conditions for provisional clearance of consignments imported by him Held th .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

oner is entitled to obtain provisional release of goods more so because goods in question are perishable in nature Therefore, interests of justice would require to permit petitioner to provisionally clear goods on compliance with conditions mentioned inExt.P17 communication, except for payment of differential duty While payment that is required of petitioner in Ext.P17 communication is 35% of differential duty, court feel respondents will be justified in insisting only on payment of 20% of d .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

RESH, ASGI, ADVS. SRI.JOHN VARGHESE, SC & SRI.THOMAS MATHEW NELLIMOOTTIL, SC JUDGMENT The challenge in the writ petition is against Ext.P17 order passed by the 2nd respondent, whereby the 2nd respondent has directed the petitioner to comply with certain conditions for the provisional release of consignments of arecanut, that were imported by the petitioner from Srilanka. In the writ petition, the petitioner is aggrieved by the condition requiring payment of 35% of the differential duty (on t .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

on No.26/2000 dated 01.03.2000, which gave effect to the Indo Srilankan Foreign Trade Agreement entered into between the Governments of India and Srilanka. The customs authorities, however, denied the benefit of the concessional rate of duty as applicable under the said Notification, to the consignments imported by the petitioner, inter alia, on the ground that an inspection of the consignments revealed the presence of certain gunny bags, which suggested that the goods that were imported were no .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

the differential duty etc. It is this condition, that the petitioner takes objection to, and is the basis of the challenge in the writ petition. 2. I have heard Sri.Madhu Radhakrishnan, the learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.John Varghese, the learned Standing counsel for the respondents. Sri.John Varghese, would point out that the respondent authorities had sufficient material to suspect that the goods, that were imported by the petitioner, were not of Srilankan origin, going by the te .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

rotect the interest of the revenue, a provisional release could be permitted only subject to the petitioner depositng substantial amounts towards the differential duty that would be payable, in case the benefit of the Notification was not available. 3. Considering the submission of counsel on either side, I note that, in the instant case, the petitioner had submitted documents to substantiate his contention with regard to the origin of the goods from Srilanka. While he had filed a declaration to .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

burden in establishing that the goods qualified for the benefit of the concessional rate in terms of the aforementioned Notification. I also take note of the objections, raised on behalf of the customs authorities, and find that the matter with regard to the eligibility of the petitioner for the benefit of concessional rate of duty as per the Notification aforementioned can be finally decided only through an adjudication at the hands of the respondents. Pending such adjudication, however, the pe .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

Discussion Forum
what is new what is new
 


Share:            

|| Home || About us || Feedback || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members ||

© Taxmanagementindia.com [A unit of MS Knowledge Processing Pvt. Ltd.] All rights reserved.

Go to Mobile Version