Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 1 to 20 of 663 Records
-
2012 (12) TMI 1228
The Bombay High Court ordered the respondents to return expired bank guarantees within two weeks and not to invoke the remaining guarantee, returning it to the petitioners upon expiry without renewal. The notice of motion was disposed of accordingly.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1122
Issues Involved: 1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus. 2. Applicability of extended period u/s 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Confiscation of goods u/s 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. 4. Imposition of fine and penalty u/s 125 and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Summary:
1. Eligibility for exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus: The appellant, M/s. Air India Ltd., imported an aircraft engine claiming exemption under Notification No. 21/2002-Cus., dated 1-3-2002 (Serial No. 347). The condition for exemption required that the parts be used for the manufacture or servicing of aeroplanes. The Commissioner observed that the engine was kept for repairs and re-export, not for servicing any aeroplane in India, thus not fulfilling the exemption conditions.
2. Applicability of extended period u/s 28 of the Customs Act, 1962: The Commissioner concluded that the appellant claimed the exemption under an erroneous understanding and there was no wilful misdeclaration or suppression of facts. Hence, the extended period u/s 28 could not be invoked for confirming the duty demand.
3. Confiscation of goods u/s 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962: The Commissioner held that the goods were liable for confiscation u/s 111(o) as the appellant did not fulfill the conditions for availing the exemption. The goods were confiscated, and a redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs was imposed u/s 125, along with a penalty of Rs. 1 lakh u/s 112(a).
4. Imposition of fine and penalty u/s 125 and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962: The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, stating that the duty demand arises u/s 125(2) and not u/s 28, with no time limit for duty demand under this section. The fine and penalty were deemed appropriate given the value of the goods and the nature of the violation. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding no infirmity in the Commissioner's order.
Conclusion: The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's order, confirming the confiscation of goods, imposition of fine and penalty, and the duty demand u/s 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal was dismissed as devoid of merits.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1116
Issues Involved: 1. Incorrect application and claim of drawback under Rule 6. 2. Rejection of supplementary claims as time-barred. 3. Applicability of Rule 17 for condonation of delay.
Summary:
1. Incorrect application and claim of drawback under Rule 6: The exporter-respondents, M/S Cummins India Ltd., incorrectly applied for, claimed, and received drawbacks under Rule 6 of the Drawback Rules, 1995, despite All Industry Drawback rates being notified for their goods under Rule 3. The Department initiated proceedings for recovery of excess paid drawback under Rule 16 by issuing three Show Cause Notices, which were adjudicated by the Commissioner of Customs, Pune.
2. Rejection of supplementary claims as time-barred: The respondents filed supplementary claims under Rule 15 for the period from May 2005 to February 2010, which were rejected by the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, ICD Dighi, as time-barred. The Commissioner (Appeals) allowed the appeals, but the applicant department contended that the supplementary claims were not filed within the stipulated time limit and were not covered by the original Show Cause Notices and Order-in-Original dated 21.03.2011.
3. Applicability of Rule 17 for condonation of delay: The respondents argued that the delay in filing supplementary claims should be condoned under Rule 17, which allows the Central Government to exempt exporters from provisions of the rules for reasons beyond their control. However, the Government noted that Rule 17 empowers only the Central Government to grant such relaxation and no such extension was granted in this case. The Government held that the claims were hit by time limitation and set aside the Order-in-Appeal, restoring the Order-in-Original.
Conclusion: The Revision Application succeeded, and the impugned Order-in-Appeal was set aside for not being legal, restoring the Order-in-Original.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1110
The case of petitioner is that since, there is no order for clearance qua this consignment, the Commissioner should have deliberated with respect to the said consignment as well - Held that: - the Commissioner of Customs is directed to deliberate with respect to whether or not clearance ought to be made qua the consignment covered under bill of entry no.3431758 dated 06.05.2011 and thereafter pass an appropriate order, as deemed fit, in accordance with the law - petition disposed off.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1093
Issues involved: The judgment involves issues related to waiver and stay sought by appellants in respect of adjudged dues, penalty imposed under Section 114 and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, fraudulent drawback claims, financial hardships, and liability of individuals involved in fraudulent transactions.
Adjudged Dues and Penalty: The appellant in Appeal No. C/258/2012 was asked to pay over Rs. 1.37 crores as drawback denied by the adjudicating authority for 154 Shipping Bills filed in the name of 12 persons with different IE Codes. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 2 crores was imposed on the same appellant under Section 114 and Section 114AA of the Customs Act. The appellant in Appeal No. C/264/2012 challenged the penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs imposed on him under the same provisions. The appellants sought waiver and stay, with one appellant filing a miscellaneous application for amendments in the Memorandum of Appeal.
Role of Individuals in Fraudulent Transactions: Shri Kalandar Seeni Ahmed was found at the center of the controversy, receiving over Rs. 1.37 crores in drawback for sub-standard goods under Shipping Bills filed by another individual. A penalty of Rs. 2 crores was imposed on Shri Kalandar Seeni Ahmed for his involvement in the fraudulent drawback claims. The appellant contested the penalty amount, claiming a lesser liability. However, the evidence supported the findings against Shri Kalandar Seeni Ahmed, who was held jointly and severally liable to pay the drawback amount.
Financial Hardships and Predeposits: The appellant's plea of financial hardships was not substantiated with evidence, leading to a direction to predeposit Rs. 50 lakhs towards the drawback demand and Rs. 15 lakhs towards penalty within four weeks. Compliance was to be reported to the authorities, with waiver and stay granted for the balance amounts subject to due compliance.
Liability of Another Individual: Shri Vijay Anand, involved in filing Shipping Bills, claimed innocence regarding fraudulent intent. However, statements given by Shri Vijay Anand under the Customs Act revealed his involvement in the fraudulent transactions. He was found to have deliberately participated in the fraudulent activities, leading to a penalty of Rs. 50 lakhs imposed on him. Shri Vijay Anand was directed to predeposit Rs. 20 lakhs towards the penalty, with waiver and stay granted for the balance amounts upon compliance.
Conclusion: The judgment highlighted the liability of individuals in fraudulent transactions, the imposition of penalties under the Customs Act, considerations of financial hardships, and the requirement for predeposits to secure waiver and stay for the balance amounts.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1083
Issues Involved: The application for anticipatory bail u/s 438 read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. in FIR No. 254/2012 involving Sections 380/468/471/34 IPC.
Details of the Judgment:
Issue 1: Anticipatory Bail Application 1. The petitioner filed an application for anticipatory bail u/s 438 read with Section 482 Cr. P.C. in FIR No. 254/2012, involving Sections 380/468/471/34 IPC. 2. Allegations include illegal removal of goods worth over `10 crores from the custody of CONCOR using forged documents. 3. Investigation revealed involvement of the petitioner based on statements of co-accused and recovery of goods. 4. The petitioner's earlier bail application was rejected due to evasion and alleged forgeries in the case. 5. The petitioner filed a second bail application before the High Court. 6. The petitioner argued against custodial interrogation, citing recovered goods and specimen signatures comparison. 7. Petitioner claimed mala fide registration of FIR due to previous court order regarding interrogation presence. 8. State vehemently opposed bail, stating ongoing investigations and possibility of larger conspiracy. 9. Court considered liberal use of anticipatory bail but emphasized discretion based on judicial principles. 10. Court noted the gravity of the offense involving forged documents and complicity within Customs, requiring custodial interrogation. 11. Distinguished the present case from a previous case involving financial implications and highlighted the need for thorough investigation. 12. Considering the seriousness of the offense, the Court denied anticipatory bail to the petitioner. 13. Rejected the oral prayer for interrogation in the presence of counsel due to lack of specific prayer in the application.
This judgment highlights the importance of discretion in granting anticipatory bail based on the gravity of the offense and the need for thorough investigation in cases involving significant financial implications and potential larger conspiracies.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1005
The checked-in-baggage had already been handed over to the officials of the Airliner and even according to the prosecution, the checked- in- baggage was offloaded from the Aircraft and brought to place where the mahazer was being drawn.
whether the checked-in-baggage offloaded was locked and whether it was opened by the petitioner
-
2012 (12) TMI 1002
Provisional release of goods - Held that: - In case, the appeal is filed within a period of ten days along with an application for interim stay, the application for interim stay will be considered and decided within a period of five days from the date of filing of the application and appeal will be disposed off finally in accordance with law, as early as possible, but not later than a period of two months from the date of filing of the appeal - Application disposed of.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1001
Provisional release of goods - Held that: - In case, the appeal is filed within a period of ten days along with an application for interim stay, the application for interim stay will be considered and decided within a period of five days from the date of filing of the application and appeal will be disposed off finally in accordance with law, as early as possible, but not later than a period of two months from the date of filing of the appeal - Application disposed of.
-
2012 (12) TMI 1000
Valuation - Value of Software include ability in the value of software - The allegation of the Revenue is that the value of the impugned goods have been split up into hardware and software portion with an intention to evade payment of Customs duty - Imposition of redemption fine and penalty.
-
2012 (12) TMI 998
Provisional release of goods - Held that: - In case, the appeal is filed within a period of ten days along with an application for interim stay, the application for interim stay will be considered and decided within a period of five days from the date of filing of the application and appeal will be disposed off finally in accordance with law, as early as possible, but not later than a period of two months from the date of filing of the appeal - Application disposed of.
-
2012 (12) TMI 988
Issues involved: Appeal against imposition of penalties under Section 112 and Section 114AA of the Customs Act, 1962.
Section 112 Penalty Issue: The appellants contested penalties imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act for alleged violation of Section 111(d). The appellant Suketu Jhaveri was accused of using another person's IEC, resulting in confiscation of goods. The Tribunal analyzed the provisions of Section 111(d) and concluded that no violation occurred as the imported goods were not prohibited by any law, misdeclared, or in contravention of Customs Act or other Acts. Consequently, penalties under Section 112 were deemed not applicable and were set aside.
Section 114AA Penalty Issue: Regarding penalties under Section 114AA of the Customs Act, the Tribunal referenced a High Court ruling stating that using another person's IEC does not constitute an offense under the Customs Act. As the appellants did not breach any Customs Act provisions, penalties under Section 114AA were also deemed inapplicable and set aside. The impugned order against the appellants was overturned, and their appeals were allowed with any consequential relief.
-
2012 (12) TMI 985
Delay in filling Appeal Order not communicated in person Petitioner contended that he had not received order-in-original for long time and therefore had not filed appeal earlier Tribunal by impugned order rejected appeal holding that signature contained in acknowledgment slip matched with admitted signature of petitioner Held that:- true that Department relies on acknowledgment however, it was not clear why order was communicated in person as opposed to normal practice of serving orders through RPAD Tribunal was not quite justified in recording that signature in acknowledgment slip was same as those of admitted signatures of partner In larger interest of justice, proceedings remanded to Commissioner (Appeals), who shall hear appeal on merits Impugned orders of Tribunal quashed Decided in favour of Assesse.
-
2012 (12) TMI 982
Search and seizure of contrabands without warrant Trial Court convicted accused of offence punishable under Section 15 of NDPS Act, 1985 and awarded 10 years rigorous imprisonment with fine Impugned order of conviction was challenged for non-compliance of section 42 Held that:- PW1 deposed that upon receiving secret information, information was neither reduced to writing nor communicated to senior officer as required under Section 42 No effort was made by PW1 to reduce information into writing and inform his higher authorities instantaneously or even after reasonable delay On contrary PW 1 had more than sufficient time to comply with provisions No documentary evidence available to show what Investigating Officer was doing for two hours and what prevented him from complying with provisions of Act Impugned judgment of conviction set aside Appeal allowed Decided in favour of Appellant.
-
2012 (12) TMI 969
Confiscation of goods - Commercial quantity goods - baggage declaration not present - Held that:- Applicant passenger, on arrival at the airport had reported at the red channel. There is no charge of misdeclaration or concealment of said goods. The goods are confiscated as the same were in commercial quantity and did not constitute bona fide baggage - Applicant has also requested to allow duty free baggage allowance as per rules. In this regards, it is noted that the woollen textiles valuing ₹ 30,000/- cannot be treated in commercial quantity and its value is also well within admissible duty free baggage allowance. Therefore, said textiles valuing ₹ 30,000/- may be allowed clearance under duty free baggage allowance available under the Baggage Rules. The other items are in commercial quantity and do not constitute bona fide baggage under Section 79 of Customs Act, 1962 and said goods are imported in violation of Sections 79 & 11 of Customs Act, 1962 r/w para 2.20 of FTP 2009-14. Therefore the order for confiscation of said goods and imposition of penalty cannot be assailed. - applicant has not sought re-export of goods on his arrival, under Section 80 of Customs Act, 1962. He has deliberately attempted to import the said goods illegally and therefore his request for re-export cannot be accepted at this stage - allows clearance of woollen textiles valuing ₹ 30,000/- is allowed under duty free baggage allowance - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (12) TMI 890
Waiver of pre-deposit of Custom duty - Notification NO.29/2010 - Notification No. 6/2006 - Assessee made imports of microprocessors meant for fitment inside CPU housing/Laptop body - Exempted from payment of additional duty of customs leviable u/s 3(1)
Notification No.29/2010 provides nil rate of duty in respect of the goods classifiable under any chapter in respect of all pre-packaged goods intended for retail sale
Held that:- Goods in question are in pre-packaged and as per the Notification No. 44(RE-2000)/1997-2002 dated 24.11.2000 issued by the DGFT provides that all pre-package commodities are to be affixed MRP. In view of the above notification as the goods in question are pre-packaged therefore are to be affixed retail sale price. Therefore, prima facie in view of the notification cannot be denied on the grounds that are not after retail sale price. Stay granted
-
2012 (12) TMI 889
Concealment of medicinal powder in the Shampoo and Talcum Powder bottles - confiscation order & penalty - Held that:- Another Single Judge of this Court in a petition filed by the mother of petitioner Mrs. Chinta Devi in Chinta Devi Vs. Rajesh Arora Air Custom Officer [2011 (7) TMI 986 - DELHI HIGH COURT] had quashed the proceedings in the aforesaid criminal complaint on the ground that her exoneration by the Joint Secretary, Government of India, had attained finality.
Joint Secretary to the Government of India has accepted the contention of the petitioner that she had no knowledge about the substances in the aforesaid shampoo and talcum powder bottles, therefore, in this case there cannot be any mens rea since the petitioner had no knowledge about the substance found in the aforesaid bottles. The Joint Secretary has maintained the order of confiscation and the same has not been challenged by the petitioner since the said two bottles were of the substances which are not permissible to be given to the petitioner. Under the Customs Act, 1962 there is complete restriction on the aforesaid substance, which the petitioner has brought from Hong-kong, without her knowledge, therefore, her state of mind cannot be said to be having an intention to import or smuggle the aforesaid substance - Thus in the present case the criminal proceedings pending before the trial court cannot go on, against the petitioner, since the petitioner has been fully exonerated by the Joint Secretary to the Government of India, and same has attained the finality.
-
2012 (12) TMI 861
Preventive detention Smuggling of goods - Section 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 (COFEPOSA Act) - Smuggling of red sanders to Dubai - The red sanders recovered from the three containers - Seized under the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962
The detenu was served with the grounds of detention, which advert to the continual criminal activities of the detenu necessitating issuance of detention order, with a view to prevent him from indulging into smuggling activities in future
Petitioner says and submits that the detaining authority has not formulated the grounds of detention at all - Detaining authority has merely replaced the names of detenu and co-detenues with words like "you" and "your" in the grounds of detention served on the detenu and co-detenues, implying that the grounds of detention have been formulated by the sponsoring authority and not by the detaining authority - The petitioner says and submits that the detention law, in the instant case, has been invoked against the detenu as he refused to bribe the concerned senior officers of the sponsoring authority
Held that:- Following the decision in case of Rajesh Vashdev Adnani vs. State of Maharashtra (2005 (10) TMI 493 - SUPREME COURT) that similar cosmetic changes were noticed in the grounds of detention purportedly formulated by the Detaining Authority. The Detaining Authority has not made any amends to ensure that the grounds of detention, and more particularly, the basis on which the subjective satisfaction has been reached must be formulated by the Detaining Authority on his own and not by bodily lifting the contents of the proposal sent by the Sponsoring Authority by making cosmetic changes thereto. Such approach of the Detaining Authority has been repeatedly frowned upon by the Courts considering the fact that the exercise of power to detain a person without a trial on the basis of circumstances of suspicion is a very drastic order to be passed, which cannot be and ought not to be resorted to lightly. Direct the State Authorities to forthwith release the detenu. In favour of assessee
-
2012 (12) TMI 860
Provisional release of the vessel - Furnish security in the form of a bank guarantee - Section 129A (1)(a) of the Customs Act - Held that:- With regard to the facts of the case and the urgency pleaded by the assessee. Direct the Tribunal to dispose of the appeal within three weeks from the date of its filing and removal of defects.
-
2012 (12) TMI 836
Outstanding refund claim - assessee seeking refund the amounts due to them with interest - Held that:- As decided in SHREE SIMANDAR ENTERPRISES case [2012 (9) TMI 538 - KERALA HIGH COURT] which arose from 2012 (8) TMI 176 - KERALA HIGH COURT the event of the petitioners producing documents pertaining to the identity of the person to whom refund is to be made along with proof of address and also bank account number and executing an indemnity bond undertaking to keep the department indemnified against future claims by someone else who might produce the original of the duty paid challan, the respondent will refund the amount payable to the petitioners. Also to pay interest at 6% per annum was also vacated - directions for refund of excess fine and penalty without interest.
........
|