|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 281 to 300 of 663 Records
-
2012 (9) TMI 606
CHA - Suspension of licence – Held that:- licence of the appellant stands suspended for more than 28 months without final disclosure of the evidence and without final hearing in the matter, it is proper to restore the licence of the appellant as an interim measure - appeal allowed
-
2012 (9) TMI 605
Seizure - Gold biscuits of foreign origin - offence under Section 135 of Customs act and Section 85 of Gold Control Act – acquittal of the respondent/accused - Held that:- No seizure mahazar has been drawn at the place where the car was seized nor any witnesses are examined from the neighbourhood - place where the car was stopped was busy area with many shops and commercial establishments, as admitted by PWs.1 and 3 in the cross-examination but none of the occupants of the neighbouring shops and establishments were cited as witnesses and no mahazar was drawn at the place where the vehicle was seized - grounds on which the accused are acquitted are based on the evidence on record and that there is no illegality or infirmity in the order passed by the learned Magistrate - appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 572
Representation submitted by the petitioner - Held that:- As in assessee's own case [2010 (1) TMI 466 - MADRAS HIGH COURT ] assessee was denied of opportunity to represent his case, the respondent is directed to dispose of the representation dated 18.1.2012 made by the assessee on merits and in accordance with law within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.
-
2012 (9) TMI 571
Writ petition – Writ Petition was filed contending that the order passed by the Tribunal is without jurisdiction – Held that:- Tribunal has also gone into the question on merits including the process of valuation and incidence of tax and to characterize the nature of the order passed including the process of valuation, it is clear that the appeal would lie to the Supreme Court under Section 130E(b) of the Act - no error or illegality in the order so as to call for interference - appeal is dismissed
-
2012 (9) TMI 570
Revision petitions - personal penalty - custom officers had intercepted one passenger Krishan Kumar Gupta with foreign currency - passenger Shri Krishan Kumar Gupta had stated that the seized foreign currency was handed over to him by Shri Rajeev Wadhwa Director M/s. Mahavir Forex (P) Ltd. The second applicant Shri Sanjeev Wadhwa is another Director of said company. Both the applicant failed to appear before Customs for tendering their statement despite repeated summons – Held that:- What extent the said statement is admissible against a third party when the said third party has not been given right to cross-examination - petitioners have been implicated only on the basis of the statement by the third person - order does not even refer to the submissions made on behalf of the petitioners, evidence/material relied upon by the petitioners and deal with them - matter is remanded to the Joint Secretary, Government of India, for fresh adjudication
-
2012 (9) TMI 538
Denial of Refund of excess fine and penalty - non production of original challan for paying the penalty & photocopy was produced - Held that:- The grievance of the department seems to be genuine, as later, if someone brings the original chalan and claims this money, the Department would be in difficulty as there is no time limit fixed in Ext.P3 for refund. Accordingly the assessee is directed to produce the documents pertaining to the identity of the person with correct proof of address and also bank account number along with indemnity bond with an undertaking to the Department so that genuine apprehension expressed by the Department could be satisfied to a large extent - there cannot be award of 6% interest on the amount to be refunded.
-
2012 (9) TMI 537
Classification - Import of Long Pepper - differential duty – misdeclaration - parties had evaded duty by deceptively describing the goods as “Pippali” and wrongly classifying it under SH 1211.90 with intent to pay duty at lesser rate than what was applicable to “Long Pepper” classifiable under SH 0904.11 – Held that:- Name of the commodity in Hindi is also seen as ‘Pippali’ in this book. It is, therefore, not deniable that what is known in English as “Long Pepper” is known as ‘Pippali’ in Sanskrit - description of Long Pepper as ‘Pippali’ by these appellants in the Bills of Entry would not amount to ‘misdeclaration’ to attract Section 111(m) of the Customs Act and, consequently, no penalty can be imposed on these appellants under Section 112 of the Act - demands of duty set aside - redemption fine set aside;
Redemption fine – Held that:- Goods imported by the appellant were allowed to be cleared on payment of duty based on their declaration, without any bond or other undertaking - when the order-in-original was passed by the Jt. Commissioner, the goods were not physically available for confiscation - no redemption fine was liable to be imposed under Section 125 of the Act in lieu of confiscation of the goods
-
2012 (9) TMI 536
100% EOU - loss of the capital goods/raw material/consumable - imported/procured indigenously duty free under the provisions of Notification No. 52/2003-Customs - Applicability of Explanation to Rule 6 of Central Excise - fire accident took place in the premises of the assessee – Held that:- Duty cannot be demanded on the goods which have been destroyed due to unavoidable accident/natural causes on the ground that they have not been used for the intended purpose - raw materials/capital goods which are in the premises of production would not be hit by the Explanation to Rule 6 of the Central Excise (Removal of Goods at Concessional Rate of Duty for Manufacture of Excisable Goods) Rules, 2001 – in favor of assessee
-
2012 (9) TMI 501
Petition for cancellation of bail granted - the assessee is alleged to have been found in possession of a controlled substance invoking applicability of rigours of Section 37 of the NDPS Act - Held that:- At this stage after the order had been dictated, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the goods seized from the respondent are not controlled substances but are psychotropic substances, this is strange as Special Judge, NDPS, New Delhi had proceeded on the basis that the respondent had been charged with possession of a controlled substance chargeable under Section 9A r.w.s. 25A of the NDPS Act and there is no averment or ground in the petition that the seized substance is not a controlled substance or that Sections 9A and 25 A are not applicable. In fact, the present petition is supported by an affidavit of an officer of the Customs Department and has been pending in this Court for the last more than four years.
However, in the interest of justice, one opportunity is given to the petitioner to amend its petition, if it so desires, subject to payment of costs of Rs.50,000/-. Half the costs shall be paid to the respondent and the other half shall be deposited with the Delhi High Court Legal Services Committee within two weeks.
-
2012 (9) TMI 500
Refund – unjust enrichment – refund has been rejected only on the ground that in their books of accounts, the appellant had shown amounts of duty as claims recoverable from Customs but the amount of interest was not shown as recoverable from customs – Held that:- Merely because the interest amount was not shown as recoverable amount from the customers, clause of unjust enrichment cannot be attracted - appellant is eligible for the refund
-
2012 (9) TMI 499
Penalty under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Act – Export and importing of same goods under different names - exemption under advance licence - Conspired with Customs Inspector - Whether Tribunal was right in law in confirming the penalty on the appellant when charges against M/s. MNS Exports have been set aside – Held that:- Mere fact that M/s. MNS Exports Private Ltd., have been absolved cannot be a ground to absolve the appellant herein as he is liable to be imposed penalty under Section 112(b)(ii) of the Act and the quantum of penalty awarded is also justified - appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 464
Provisional release of the goods - import of silk yarn - Held that:- As the value of the silk yarn imported by the petitioner, from Vietnam, had been fixed, as USD29.5 per kilogram the respondents are directed to release the goods in question on the petitioner paying the customs duty equivalent to 75% of the value of the goods, as fixed by the authorities concerned, at USD29.5 per kilogram. For the balance 25% of the customs duty payable by the petitioner, the petitioner shall furnish a personal bond to the satisfaction of the respondents.
-
2012 (9) TMI 463
Import of goods – rejection of transaction value – goods were imported by the appellant from a trading company at Macau and the goods were found to be of Chinese origin - goods were described in the import invoice as ceiling lamp, wall lamp etc. 100% examination of the goods revealed that the ceiling lamp was fitted with bulb & CFL - Revenue entertained a view that the goods were mis-declared and there was an incomplete declaration. They also felt that on above account the invoice did not reflect the correct value – Held that:- There is virtually no evidence on record to reject the transaction value. Further there is neither any reference nor any evidence to the effect that the importer has paid any under hand consideration to the supplier of the goods - no reference to any contemporaneous goods - no justifiable reasons to reject the transaction value and to enhance the value of the goods in question - imposition of separate penalties on the proprietary firm as also on the Proprietor is against the settled principles of law
-
2012 (9) TMI 462
Classification – import of goods - scrap of iron & steel/re-rollable as well as reusable - department alleged that the goods classified under the Chapter 73 were restricted items and per EXIM policy – Held that:- Goods were old and used cut pieces, and cuttings etc. of various articles of iron and steel. Hence the same were in fact melting steel scrap, which is classifiable under Chapter 72 - Revenue’s appeal rejected
-
2012 (9) TMI 425
Exhibit B (wrongly typed as Exhibit D) - Whether declaration contained therein would be construed as authorization under Regulation 13(a) in favour of CHA? - Held that:- Considering Exhibit B on the letterhead of the appellant it is titled as shipping instructions. As a part of this document, a declaration is purported to be signed by the exporter. This document at Exhibit B is not referred to in the order in original dated 22.8.2008 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (General), Mumbai Zone-I and also not in the order dated 12.1.2010 passed by the CESTAT - no point in answering this question.
Revocation of CHA License - Held that:- Having gone through the statement of Mr. Parmesh as well as Mr. Vikas Doshi it is noticed that Mr. Vikas Doshi managed to get the cargo of M/s. Doshi International and M/s. Kumar Enterprises for export. The statements of Mr.Parmesh and Mr. Vikas Doshi clearly indicate that documents such as invoices, SDF Form along with Annexure B duly signed by the exporter/exporter's representative were received by the department from the exporter through Shri Vikas Doshi, however, the fact remains that the authorization as contemplated in Regulation 13(a) and 13(b) were not filed in respect of the shipping bills of M/s. Darshan International and M/s. Kumar Enterprises. The statements of Mr. Parmesh as well as Mr. Vikas Doshi clearly go to show that Mr. Parmesh or any other employee of the said company were not knowing the exporters i.e. M/s. Darshan International and M/s. Kumar Enterprises. It is seen that Mr. Vikas Doshi, procured the documents from M/s. Darshan International and M/s. Kumar Enterprises and by using the CHA Licence of the said company the cargo was sought to be cleared without authorization - as the major charges levelled against the appellant stand proved cannot be faulted The CHA Licence of the Appellant shall stand suspended from 19.8.2008 till 30.9.2012 - directions to deposits the security deposit as per the present rules and regulations, with the appropriate officer on or before 30.9.2012 to get CHA licence restored with effect from 1.10.2012 - against assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 424
Disallowance of claim for refund – Held that:- Appellant was liable to refund and the same has been refunded pursuant to the order passed by the CESTAT on 10-1-2001, it is not now open to the appellant to contend that no documents are produced to show that the amount was with the appellant and that the original documents were not produced regarding the amount which was to be refunded and therefore there is delay in making the refund of the amount - respondent would be entitled to interest - appeal of Revenue dismissed
-
2012 (9) TMI 423
Enhancement of transaction value - import of sanitary items - Revenue entertained a view that the discounts mentioned in the invoice are on the higher side, they released the goods provisionally on execution of bank guarantee – Held that:- Value declared by the other importers is more or less same as declared by the present respondent - price list relied upon by the Revenue reflects the retail sale price of the items in the domestic market and not the export prices in the international market - price lists are merely the quotation of the prices has no reflection on the transaction value – in favor of importer
-
2012 (9) TMI 387
Confiscation of smuggled goods - electronics goods of foreign original purchased by the petitioner and Aslam Noor Mohammed - Held that:- As the discrepancy in goods noticed by the adjudicating authority is common to the case of the petitioner and Aslam Noor Mohammed and they are not separable and as in the case of Aslam it is held by the Tribunal that on the basis of some discrepancies in the goods and the customs receipts, it cannot be inferred that the goods in question are smuggled goods & the said order of the Tribunal has been upheld by this Court, thus the decision holding that the goods purchased by the petitioner are smuggled goods cannot be sustained - The respondents shall cancel the bank guarantee furnished by the petitioner and return the same to the petitioner. The amount of Rs.2,74,340/- deposited by the petitioner shall also be returned to the petitioner with interest @ 6% p.a. from the date of deposit till the date of payment - in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 386
Levy redemption fine - Held that:- When the authorities imposed redemption fine on the ground that the said goods are liable for confiscation without verifying as to the existence of the goods and the seizure of the goods, the imposition of redemption fine was illegal - redemption fine could be imposed only in respect of goods seized but not held liable for confiscation.
-
2012 (9) TMI 385
Condonation of delay of beyond 30 days - Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal on limitation, after observing that the order of the Original Adjudicating Authority was issued on 23-9-2006 whereas the appellant has shown the date of receipt as 21-3-2009 - whether the despatch of order by speed post by itself is sufficient to reflect upon the fact of receipt of the same or not – Held that:- It cannot be presumed that the dispatch of the order by speed post, in the absence of any proof of delivery, results in communication of the order. There is no scope for presumption in taxing matters and the deemed services provisions under Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 do not apply - matter remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals)
Decision in Margra Industries Ltd. v. C.C., New Delhi (2006 (7) TMI 18 - CESTAT, NEW DELHI) followed.
............
|
9911796707
