Subscription   Feedback   New User   Login      
Tax Management India .com
TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Articles Highlights TMI Notes SMS News Newsletters Calendar Imp. Links Database Experts Contact us More....
Extracts
Home List
← Previous Next →

M/s Lloyds Steel Industries Ltd. Versus The Commissioner of Customs (Imports) , Deputy Commissioner of Customs (Group-6) , Central Bank of India

2016 (9) TMI 223 - MADRAS HIGH COURT

Demand alongwith interest - Section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 - clearance of consignment as project contract, but failure to produce the required documents as per section 7 of the Project Import Regulations, 1986 for finalisation of the project - goods were bonded in the warehouse and a Bank Guarantee was given by the petitioner - goods having not been cleared within the statutory period, the Customs Authorities have brought the goods for sale and the sale was completed and taken delivery b .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

terest of the third respondent Bank. Therefore, this Court is inclined to issue appropriate directions to the second respondent to take note of the subsequent events, the fact that the goods in question were sold and the sale proceeds have been remitted to the Customs Department, for which purpose the order passed by the second respondent requires to be set aside. - Matter remanded back - W. P. No. 8978 of 2005, W. P. M. P. Nos. 9722 of 2005 & 13119 of 2006 - Dated:- 10-8-2016 - T. S. Sivagnanam .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

ed 25.11.2004. The said detention notice came to be issued consequent upon the order passed under section 28(2) of the Customs Act, 1962, dated 30.08.2002. The petitioner had registered a project contract vide File No.S37/124/90 for import of components and reactors and agitators for fabrication and supply of leaching purification plant to Tamil Nadu Magnesite Ltd. The petitioner/importer filed a Bill of Entry for warehousing the goods and accordingly the goods were warehoused. It appears that 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

ort and was called upon to show cause as to why the amount of ₹ 1,10,00,000/- should not be recovered from them. Since, notices were not responded and the petitioner did not appear before the second respondent, the proceedings were finalised exparte, by an order dated 30.08.2002, by stating that the petitioner cleared the consignment as project contract, but they failed to produce the required documents as per section 7 of the Project Import Regulations,1986 for finalisation of the project .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

od, the Customs Authorities have brought the goods for sale and the sale was completed and taken delivery by the bidder on 25.10.2000 and 30.10.2000. This is evident from the communication given by the Warehouse Manager to the second respondent dated 07.01.2005. The said communication was in response to the letter written by the second respondent dated 06.01.2005. 4. Thus, if the goods have already been sold and the sale proceeds have been deposited with the Customs, parallely, the second respon .....

X X X X X X X

Extract - Part text only
Click here to Access Full Contents

X X X X X X X

 

 

 

 

 

what is new what is new
  ↓     bird's eye view     ↓  


|| Home || Acts and Rules || Notifications || Circulars || Schedules || Tariff || Forms || Case Laws || Manuals ||

|| About us || Contact us || Disclaimer || Terms of Use || Privacy Policy || TMI Database || Members || Site Map ||

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

Go to Mobile Version