|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 241 to 260 of 663 Records
-
2012 (10) TMI 43
Benefit of DEPB credit - allegation of overvaluation - Held that:- proceedings against the exporter were dropped by this Tribunal relying on orders of RAMMAPATI EXPORTS versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT), KOLKATA [2006 (8) TMI 16 - CESTAT, KOLKATA] - once the charge against the exporter itself does not survive, the question of aiding and abetting also does not survive - the so-called new material/evidence not being relatable or relevant as found to uphold the charge of over-valuation, leads to the setting aside of the impugned Order and the notice. - in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (10) TMI 42
Confiscation of goods and imposition of fine - violation of Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, 1962 – Held that:- Assessee imported the capital goods but not to the extent of Rs. 1 Crore, he cannot have the benefit of waiver of duty - assessee paid the duty and for delayed payment, he paid interest and thus, he did not avail the benefit of that notification - assessee conducting himself contrary to the notification thus exposing himself to the order of confiscation, do not arise - when once the assessee pay the duty and interest, goods will be out of the ambit of the said notification and they cannot be held liable for confiscation under Section 111(o) of the Act - in favour of the assessee
-
2012 (10) TMI 41
Demand – 100% E.O.U - alleged that dispatching of finished goods, unfinished goods and duty free raw-materials by the 100% E.O.U. to their group companies in DTA with the intention and for the purpose of (claimed) illegal/inadmissible Drawback – Held that:- Activities were done without obtaining proper permission from the jurisdictional (Customs) authorities with the help of other DTA Units - there were indeed specific checkings and investigations by the departmental officers under proper authority of law - contravention of simple (footnote) declaration can result in denial of consequential benefit - Revision Applications are thus rejected
Time bar - DBK amounts claimed and sanctioned in 1996-1997 the original Show Cause Notice was issued on 18-7-2001 - applicants herein are contesting that the addendums/corrigendum letters issued thereafter in connection with the above Show Cause Notice should be taken as a fresh Show Cause Notice and if computed from last addendum dated 2-5-2002 the issued Show Cause Notice is “Time barred” – Held that:- Government, therefore takes up the very initial Show Cause Notice or issued date as the relevant date and rest of addendums/corrigendum letter as precise details clearly pointing out the relevant data/limits/scopes of this case proceedings which have already stood commenced - Show Cause Notice dated 18-7-2001 was issued within extended time of 5 years and as such Show Cause Notice can not be treated as time barred
-
2012 (10) TMI 10
Denial of conversion of shipping bill from duty drawback scheme to advance licence scheme - denial made on ground that drawback has already been sanctioned, appellant not covered by Board's Circular No.4/2004-Cus. dt. 16.1.2004 - goods require rigorous examination at the time of export under advance licence scheme - Held that:- With regard to first ground for denial, the appellants are ready to pay drawback availed by them along with interest. Therefore, the claim cannot be denied on this ground. The denial on the ground that the Board's Circular No.4/2004-Cus. dt. 16.1.2004 is not sustainable as the conversion under advance licence scheme has not been denied by the DGFT or Ministry of Commerce or Customs due to any dispute. Therefore, the conversion from drawback scheme to advance licence scheme is available to the appellants. Further, part of the consignment was under advance licence scheme and part of the consignment was under the drawback scheme and at the time of export, the consignment was examined by the Customs authorities as per advance licence scheme. Therefore, conversion can be allowed and cannot be denied on this premise only. Order is set aside - Decided in favor of assessee
-
2012 (10) TMI 9
Remission of duty under Section 23 of the Customs Act - 100% export oriented unit - imported various duty free materials - Due to the fire accident on 7-4-2004 in the stores of the assessee’s unit, the entire raw materials had been burnt alongwith certain documents - assessee claiming remission of duty under Section 23 of the Customs Act, 1962 – Held that:- It is nobody’s case that there was any pilferage of these goods. Under these circumstances, when the claim of remission is made under Section 23 of the Act, legal requirements to be fulfilled by the assessee to claim remission stands fully satisfied - Commissioner was wholly in error in denying the said benefit - Remission of duty allowed
-
2012 (10) TMI 8
Prohibited goods - import of Crude Palm Oil (Edible Grade) - acid value was 9.77 in the sample - According to the appellant, it has imported Crude Palm Oil and the same has neither been defined under the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act nor is there any prescribed standard of Crude Palm Oil thereunder - samples did not conform to the standards laid down under PFA 1955 due to high acid value and hence, the NOC was not being issued to the Customs Authority for clearance – Held that:- It is not a case where the appellant falsely declared the goods as refined vegetable oil and consequently, a food within the meaning of Food Safety and Standards Act, 2006, but was found to be unfit as a food - imported goods is not for immediate use as a food item as declared - Customs Authority directed to not to treat the goods as prohibited goods and to assess the duty and pass appropriate order in accordance with the provisions of the Customs Act - appellant restrained from utilizing the imported goods as food within the meaning of the Act of 2006 without complying with the requirement of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Rules - Mandamus - Appeal allowed
-
2012 (9) TMI 1225
Issues involved: Release of goods detained by customs authorities, challenge to the order of Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), pending writ appeals before Division Bench.
Release of detained goods: The petitioner requested release of goods detained by customs authorities despite a final order by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) stating that the goods were not hazardous and did not require a license for import. The petitioner's goods, identified as digital multifunction machines, were not classified as photocopiers as per a decision by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The court directed the authorities to release the goods upon payment of appropriate customs duty and fulfillment of prescribed conditions, emphasizing expeditious release.
Challenge to Commissioner's order: The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) had set aside the second respondent's order, declaring the goods non-hazardous and not requiring a license for import. The order had become final as the customs department did not challenge it. Despite this, the goods were not released by the authorities, prompting the petitioner to seek intervention from the court for their release.
Pending writ appeals: The respondents did not contest the submissions made by the petitioner but mentioned the pending writ appeals before a Division Bench challenging a previous order. The court acknowledged the pending appeals but still directed the immediate release of the goods upon fulfillment of necessary conditions and payment of dues as per the law, without imposing any costs on the petitioner.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1166
... ...
... ... ..... he Respondent Mr. Joseph Vellapally, Sr. Adv., Mr. S. Sukumaran, Adv., Mr. Anand Sukumar, Adv., Mr. Bhupesh Kumar Pathak, Adv, Mr. Debjyoti Basu, Adv., Ms. Meera Mathur, Adv. ORDER Leave granted. Tag with ............. ( )
-
2012 (9) TMI 1116
The Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition as withdrawn after the petitioner's counsel stated that they have instructions not to press the petition.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1075
The Supreme Court dismissed the Special Leave Petition but directed the petitioner to comply with the pre-deposit order dated 14th February, 2011 within four weeks for their appeals to be revived and disposed of on merits.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1067
The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai dismissed the applications for waiver of dues due to non-prosecution. The applicants are directed to deposit the entire dues as per the impugned order within four weeks and report compliance by 01.11.2012.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1041
Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment are the valuation of goods for customs duty, determination of quantity basis for duty calculation, refund entitlement, delay in appeal filing, and direction for expeditious disposal of stay application.
Valuation of goods for customs duty:
The petitioner entered into an agreement for export of Iron Ore Fines with a foreign buyer. The Assessing Officer enhanced the valuation of goods without providing any reason, leading to excess duty payment by the petitioner. The Appellate Commissioner allowed the appeal, accepting the valuation declared by the petitioner and determining that the quantity was to be assessed on Dry Metric Ton basis, not Wet Metric Ton basis.
Refund entitlement:
The petitioner claimed entitlement to a refund of &8377; 22,18,734/- as per the Appellate Order. Despite applying for a refund, the respondents filed an appeal along with a stay application and an application for condonation of delay. The Court noted that no stay had been granted yet and directed the respondents to refund the duty collected from the petitioner within two months from the date of communication of the order.
Delay in appeal filing and direction for expeditious disposal:
The delay in filing the appeal had not been condoned, rendering the appeal non-existent in the eye of the law. However, since the appeal and stay application were pending for over eight months, the Court directed the Tribunal to hear and dispose of the condonation of delay application and the stay application expeditiously, preferably within two months from the date of communication of the order. The writ application was disposed of accordingly, with an urgent certified copy of the order to be supplied to the parties upon compliance with formalities.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1039
Issues Involved:
1. Legality of detention due to lack of extension of remand.
2. Entitlement to bail u/s 167(2) CrPC due to non-filing of chargesheet within the stipulated period.
3. Interpretation of "taking cognizance" by the court.
Summary of Judgment:
1. Legality of Detention:
The petitioner argued that his detention was illegal as there was no order of extension of remand after being remanded to judicial custody on 16/12/2011. He was not produced before the Special Court for extension of remand.
2. Entitlement to Bail u/s 167(2) CrPC:
The petitioner contended that he should be granted bail u/s 167(2) CrPC as no cognizance was taken within 180 days of his custody. The chargesheet was filed on 31st May 2012, before the expiry of the 180-day period on 14th June 2012. The court held that the chargesheet was filed within the statutory period, and thus, the petitioner was not entitled to default bail. The court referred to the case of Pragya Singh Thakur Vs. State of Maharashtra and other precedents, emphasizing that the right to default bail is not absolute and is lost once the chargesheet is filed within the stipulated period.
3. Interpretation of "Taking Cognizance":
The petitioner argued that the court did not take cognizance of the case within the stipulated period, which should entitle him to bail. The court clarified that "taking cognizance" means becoming aware of the offence and not necessarily the offender. The court held that the Principal Judge's act of directing the registration of the Sessions Case was a sufficient compliance under the law, and thus, no right to default bail accrued to the petitioner. The court cited the case of State of West Bengal v. Mohammed Khalid, which states that cognizance is taken of cases and not of persons.
Conclusion:
The petition for bail was dismissed as the chargesheet was filed within the stipulated period, and the court's actions were in compliance with the legal requirements. The petitioner's detention was deemed legal, and no right to default bail was established. The petition failed, and Rule nisi was discharged with no costs.
-
2012 (9) TMI 1033
Issues involved: Alleged action of Customs Authorities in withholding passport, legality of such action under Customs Act and Passports Act.
Details of the judgment:
Issue 1: Alleged action of Customs Authorities in withholding passport
The petitioner's passport was withheld by Customs Authorities after an incident involving the discovery of vaccines and injections in the petitioner's baggage. The petitioner was arrested under Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962, and remanded to jail custody. Despite repeated requests, the passport was not returned to the petitioner. The Customs Authorities claimed the right to withhold the passport, but there was no provision under the Customs Act, 1962 allowing such action.
Issue 2: Legality of withholding passport under Passports Act
The Passports Act, 1967 governs passports and allows impoundment or revocation if criminal proceedings are pending. The Supreme Court in Suresh Nanda vs. CBI clarified that the Passport Authority has the power to impound passports under the Act. The Court held that the Customs Authorities had no jurisdiction to retain the petitioner's passport and ordered its return within 30 days. The Customs Authorities were advised to approach the passport authorities under Section 10 of the Passports Act, 1967 if necessary.
Significant legal references:
- Suresh Nanda vs. CBI highlighted the distinction between the Passports Act and general provisions like Section 104 of the Criminal Procedure Code regarding passport impoundment.
- Avinash Bhosale vs. Union of India emphasized that the Passports Act is a complete code for dealing with passport impoundment, and executive authorities cannot impound passports under other Acts like the Income-tax Act.
The judgment concluded by directing the return of the petitioner's passport and reminding the petitioner to comply with bail conditions. The writ application was disposed of, allowing for the issuance of an urgent certified copy of the order to the parties upon request.
-
2012 (9) TMI 992
Issues involved: Application for refund of duty u/s 74 of the Customs Act, 1962; Delay in processing refund; Discontinuation of DEPB Scheme.
Summary:
The petitioners, engaged in import and export business, imported spectacle frames and paid assessed duty. Subsequently, due to defects, they re-exported a portion of the goods and applied for a refund of duty paid. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs sanctioned a drawback of 98% of duty paid on two Bills of Entry, but the refund for the remaining duty paid through DEPB was pending. The petitioners sought refund u/s 74 of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows for duty drawback upon re-export of goods. Despite requests, the competent authority for processing the claim was not disclosed, and the DEPB Scheme had been discontinued.
The Court held that the discontinuation of the DEPB Scheme does not affect the right to refund of tax paid. The delay in re-export, if any, is condonable, and the Customs authorities cannot unnecessarily prolong the process. The Commissioner of Customs was directed to ensure prompt disbursement of the sanctioned refund and address any grievances regarding the balance refund within one month. Additionally, all amounts due to the petitioners were to be disbursed within two weeks of the decision, along with interest.
In conclusion, the Court emphasized the entitlement of importers and exporters to duty drawback as a matter of right and instructed the Customs authorities to expedite the refund process and address the petitioners' concerns promptly.
-
2012 (9) TMI 985
Issues Involved:
1. Violation of Regulation 12 (subletting of CHA license).
2. Violation of Regulation 13(a) (failure to obtain authorization from clients).
3. Violation of Regulation 13(d) (failure to advise clients to comply with Customs Act).
4. Violation of Regulation 13(n) (failure to discharge duties with utmost speed and efficiency).
5. Appropriateness of the punishment imposed.
Summary:
Violation of Regulation 12 (Subletting of CHA License):
The appellant's CHA license was found to be sublet to third parties, which is against Regulation 12 of CHALR, 2004. Statements from various individuals, including the appellant, confirmed that the license was used by others for a monthly fee, proving the charge of subletting.
Violation of Regulation 13(a) (Failure to Obtain Authorization from Clients):
The Inquiry Officer found that the charge under Regulation 13(a) was not proved. The appellant had obtained proper authorization from their clients, which negated the charge of failing to obtain authorization.
Violation of Regulation 13(d) (Failure to Advise Clients to Comply with Customs Act):
The charge under Regulation 13(d) was initially held as proved by the Inquiry Officer. However, the Member (Judicial) found that since the appellant had obtained proper authorization and had no knowledge of the misdeclaration/suppression, the charge under Regulation 13(d) would not sustain.
Violation of Regulation 13(n) (Failure to Discharge Duties with Utmost Speed and Efficiency):
Similar to Regulation 13(d), the charge under Regulation 13(n) was also initially held as proved. The Member (Judicial) concluded that without knowledge of the misdeclaration/suppression, the charge under Regulation 13(n) would not sustain.
Appropriateness of the Punishment Imposed:
There was a difference of opinion between the Members. The Member (Judicial) held that the punishment already suffered by the appellant (suspension since 12-12-2008) was sufficient, following the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in the case of M/s. K.M. Ganatra & Co. The Member (Technical) disagreed, emphasizing the gravity of the offense and the complete abdication of responsibility by the CHA, which warranted the punishment imposed by the Commissioner.
Majority Decision:
The Vice-President, acting as the Third Member, agreed with the Member (Technical) that the charges under Regulations 13(d) and 13(n) stood proved despite the charge under Regulation 13(a) not being proved. The Vice-President also found that the punishment of debarring the appellant from operating in Mumbai Customs Zone was appropriate and upheld the order of the Commissioner.
Final Judgment:
In view of the majority decision, the order of the Commissioner of Customs debarring the appellant CHA from operating in Mumbai Customs Zone under Regulation 20(c) of the CHALR, 2004 was upheld, and the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 949
Issues involved: Breach of provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding export of goods without Let Export Order (LEO) and imposition of penalty under Sections 113(g) and 114(iii) of the Customs Act.
Summary:
1. The appeals and stay applications were filed against an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export), Nhava Sheva, regarding the export of goods without obtaining the Let Export Order (LEO) from the customs authority.
2. The appellants, a shipping agency and an exporter, exported goods without the LEO, resulting in a notice for breach of Customs Act provisions. The goods were held liable for confiscation under Section 113(g) and penalties were imposed under Section 114(iii). The appellants contended that the loading was done early due to the goods being over dimensional, and they were not responsible for the sailing of the vessel before LEO was granted.
3. The Customs Act imposes responsibilities on exporters and their agents to ensure completion of export formalities before goods are exported. The vessel sailed before LEO was granted, leading to a breach of Customs Act provisions. The penalties imposed on the appellants were deemed justified as any act or omission making goods liable for confiscation attracts penalty under Section 114(iii).
4. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties, citing precedents where actions leading to goods being exported without LEO rendered them liable for confiscation and penalties. The only consideration was whether the penalties imposed were excessive. The penalty amounts were reduced to &8377; 1.4 lakhs for the exporter and &8377; 1.6 lakhs for the shipping agency, while upholding the lower authority's order. Stay applications were also disposed of.
-
2012 (9) TMI 943
Issues Involved:
The issues involved in this case are the release of an imported generator and the requirement of an import license.
The petitioner approached the Court seeking a direction to release the generator imported and for a further direction to the fourth respondent to pass appropriate orders on the application seeking to issue an import license. The petitioner purchased a Diesel Power Generator Set from a Chinese Company and imported it for their use at their office. The petitioner claimed that no import license is required as it is not for resale.
The respondents informed that adjudication proceedings are pending, and orders are yet to be passed. The Central Pollution Control Board is identified as the authority responsible, and the State Pollution Control Board clarified that it is not authorized to issue a Type Approval Certificate. The question of emission and assessment arises only after installation and use of the generator. The Ministry of Commerce and Industry issued a communication reflecting a decision regarding import authorization for the generator.
The Court directed the petitioner to produce the communication before the adjudicating authority for consideration and passing appropriate orders expeditiously. The writ petition was disposed of with no costs incurred.
-
2012 (9) TMI 939
Restriction on operation of Bank Account - Duty Drawback - Held that: - Section 121 of the Customs Act on which reliance was placed by Mr. Dey provides that where any smuggled goods are sold by a person having knowledge or reason to believe that the goods are smuggled goods, the sale proceeds thereof shall be liable to confiscation - The section can only be invoked on a specific finding that smuggled goods have been sold. Operations can only be prevented in respect of the sale proceeds of smuggled goods.
In this case there is admittedly no adjudication as yet.
The petitioner be allowed to operate his bank accounts - application disposed off.
-
2012 (9) TMI 927
Issues involved: Refund of custom duty denied on the grounds of limitation.
Summary:
The appellant imported chemicals, paid excess duty, and challenged the assessment. The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the assessment on 28-5-2008, directing re-assessment. The Revenue appealed to the Tribunal, which confirmed the order on 5-8-2011. The appellant filed a refund claim on 18-2-2009, before the re-assessment was done on 16-2-2010 & 31-3-2010. The claim was rejected as time-barred on 30-4-2010, upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 28-1-2011. The issue was the starting date of the limitation period for the refund claim.
The appellant argued that the limitation should start from the date of re-assessment on 31-3-2010, while the Revenue contended it should start from the date of setting aside the assessment on 28-5-2008. The Tribunal considered the provisions of Section 27 of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows filing a refund claim within six months of a judgment, decree, or direction of the appellate authority. Since the Tribunal's order on 5-8-2011 set aside the original assessment, the limitation for the refund claim started from that date.
The Tribunal held that the refund claim was within the time limit and set aside the previous order, directing the adjudicating authority to consider unjust enrichment and pass the order accordingly within 30 days.
............
|
9911796707
