|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 321 to 340 of 663 Records
-
2012 (9) TMI 145
Refund of the extra duty deposit by the assessee – Held that:- When the assessee authority held that the customs duty paid by the assessee was proper and no additional duty need be paid, they were under an obligation to refund this additional amount which was collected, which had no basis - order is legal and valid and does not suffer from any legal infirmity which calls for interference - appeal is dismissed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 144
SCN - Held that:- Notice was issued alleging non-payment of customs duties - But under what circumstances this customs duty is payable have not been disclosed - subject says “non-realization of customs duty”. The body of the show cause notice does not disclose how there is non-realization of customs duty or short payment of it - it is completely devoid of any grounds or reasons or particulars in support of its claim for short paid customs duty against the appellant/writ petitioner - show cause notice set aside
-
2012 (9) TMI 115
Non release of goods - the value of the goods shown by the petitioner could not be accepted - Held that:- Directions for provisional release of the imported goods on the payment of the entire duty payable as per its declared value, and on the deposit of 30% of the differential duty, based on the value of the goods, as as per the show cause notice and shall execute a personal bond for the balance 70% of the differential duty - the authorities concerned shall adjudicate the matter and pass appropriate orders thereon, on merits and in accordance with law, without any undue delay.
-
2012 (9) TMI 114
Interest on refund - refund claim was admitted and sanctioned to the appellant but was credited to Consumer Welfare Fund - Held that:- As the reckoning of the period for the purpose of payment of interest under Section 11BB of the Act is concerned the liability of the revenue to pay interest commences from the date of expiry of three months from the date of receipt of application for refund under Section 11B(1) and not on the expiry of the said period from the date on which order of refund is made - Thus the appellant is eligible for the interest from three months after the date of filing of the refund application till the amount of refund is sanctioned to him - in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 113
Order of acquittal - offences punishable under Sections 135(1)(b)(i) of the Gold Control Act, 1968 - accused was carrying 50 gold pellets - accused had no permit or licence to carry the gold pellets – Held that:- Search and seizure was not conducted in accordance with Sections 100 to 105 of the Customs Act inasmuch as independent witnesses, who are also the inhabitants of the locality have not been examined - provisions of Section 212 of the Cr. P.C. which are applicable in respect of a proceeding conducted under the Cr. P.C. cannot be applied to the present - delay in obtaining the sanction order and there was also delay in filing the complaint and the said delays are not properly explained and even the mahazar witness to the sport mahazar and seizure mahazar were not examined before the court - accused is entitled to be acquitted of the offence with which he was charged
-
2012 (9) TMI 112
SCN – search and seizure – alleged that SCN given to the petitioner beyond the period of six months – Held that:- Show cause notice must be given before expiry of six months and issuance of notice by registered post within six months is a sufficient compliance in the eye of law, moreso, when the same has been received by the respondent as has been admitted - Neither Section 110(2) nor Clause (a) of Section 124 of the Act contemplates service of notice in strict sense within a period of six months from the date of giving/issuing the same by registered post which mode has been prescribed under the Act. It merely speaks about giving of the notice - it cannot be said that the legislature intended to achieve service of notice within six months from the date of seizure - appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed
-
2012 (9) TMI 82
Disentitlment to the benefit of the DEPB credit - the shipment could not be completed by a cut-off date for the “Let Export Order” mentioned by the circular dated 22-9-2011, i.e 30th September, 2011 - Held that:- The petitioner is disentitled to the benefit of the DEPB scheme by virtue of a restriction imposed on 22-9-2011, made effective nine days later. To inflict such an arbitrary condition, which is declared to be legally unsustainable, and yet insist that during the interregnum a fresh condition operates to deny the citizen the relief he is justly entitled to, is unfair and unreasonable. Furthermore the respondents are also wrong in contending that the issuance of the Tribunal’s order on 8-12-2001 does not constitute a “valid reason” in terms of the circular dated 22-9-2001 warranting manual endorsement on the LEO after 30-9-2011.
In this case, the goods were neither detained, nor were subject to proceedings which culminated in any assessment order, in these circumstances, the insistence that the petitioner continue to maintain a bank guarantee for Rs. 2 crore is unwarranted. The customs authorities did not show how this condition, in addition to the bond insisted in the case of the shipment, was essential as the samples necessary for the investigation and issuance of show cause notice, if any, had been drawn. The goods were exported and the consideration was received in respect of the earlier shipments covered by the three bills bank realization certificate towards export proceeds in respect of the said shipping bills were received on 06.07.2011. In the circumstances, it would be unreasonable and unfair for the respondents, to continue to insist that the Bank guarantee for the amount of Rs. 2 crores should be maintained - the respondents are directed to treat the export in respect of the shipping bill dated 15-6-2011 as eligible to benefit of the DEPB scheme, and having been exported under it, on LEO basis - in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 81
Writ petition - demanding release of the bank guarantees and also refund of the amount pre-deposited in terms of the order of the Tribunal - alleged that the respondent authorities are withholding release of the bank guarantees as well as refund of pre-deposit – Held that:- Decision of the Tribunal having assumed finality, is not open to the respondent authorities to either withhold release of the bank guarantees or to withhold refund - respondent authorities directed to forthwith release the bank guarantees and further to refund the deposit
-
2012 (9) TMI 80
Demand of duty - appellants had not fulfilled the export obligation in terms of quantity of the goods to be cleared under the export licence – Held that:- Export obligation falling short in terms of quantity. There is no allegation in the show cause notice or finding in the order-in-original that the goods imported for fulfilling the export obligation had been diverted for some other purposes. In the absence of any evidence that the appellants had diverted duty free import for any other purposes for fulfilling the export obligation - penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act reduced
-
2012 (9) TMI 57
Delay in Order of detention - 14 ˝ months in executing the detention order - allegation of fraudulent exports made from Nhava Sheva Port - Held that:- If there is unreasonable delay in execution of the detention order, the same vitiates the order of detention. In the case on hand, though the appellant's brother-the detenu was released on bail on 11.11.2005, the detention order was passed only on 14.11.2006, actually, if the detenu was absconding and was not available for the service of the detention order, the authorities could have taken steps for cancellation of the bail and for forfeiture of the amount deposited. Admittedly, no such recourse has been taken. If the respondents were really sincere and anxious to serve the order of detention without any delay, it was expected of them to approach the court concerned which granted bail for its cancellation, by pointing out that the detenu had violated the conditions imposed and thereby enforce his appearance or production as the case may be. Admittedly, no such steps were taken instead it was explained that several attempts were made to serve copy by visiting his house on many occasions.
In the absence of proper explanation for a period of 15 months in issuing the order of detention, the same has to be set aside. Since, we are in agreement with the contentions relating to delay in passing the Detention Order and serving the same on detenu, there is no need to go into the factual details - thus as the detention period has already expired, no further direction is required for his release. The appeal is allowed.
-
2012 (9) TMI 31
Detention of the Imported goods - the goods were withheld for recovery of revenue dues from M/s. Geetha Timbers, a partnership firm - Held that:- The petitioner has entered into a High Sea Sales Contract with M/s. Geetha Timbers Pvt. Ltd., against whom there is no demand. Further more, even demand against M/s. Geetha Timbers, a partnership firm has also been stayed. Therefore, legally there is no demand, which could give jurisdiction to second respondent to detain the goods imported by the petitioner under the High Sea Sales Contract. The impugned order in refusing to release the goods is also contemptuous, as demand is contrary to the stay granted by the learned Tribunal, and therefore cannot be sustained in law.
As the liability of revenue arrears of other persons cannot be fastened on the petitioner , the order of not releasing the goods in violation of statutory provisions and thus, is hit by Article 14 of the Constitution of India, therefore can not be sustained in law - direction to the respondents to release the goods of the petitioner, subject to his payment of custom duty and other charges - in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 10
Maintenance of call book - Revenue is relying upon the Board Circular No. 162/73/95-CX - contention of Revenue is that the Commissioner (Appeals) has not followed the instructions contained in the circular – Held that:- Circular is by way of administrative instructions and the administrative instructions having no statutory forces -Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the issue involved in the appeal and simply adjourned the case to await the decision of Hon’ble High Court where the appeal is pending against the decision of the Tribunal which is arising out of the same cause of action - Commissioner (Appeals) has not decided the appeal on merits and simply adjourned the appeal – appeal of revenue is dismissed
-
2012 (9) TMI 7
Digital Multifunction Print and Copying machines - assessee pleaded for release as not of restricted category - Held that:- In respect of cases relating to which the authorised chartered engineers had not inspected the goods in question, the customs authorities concerned shall direct the inspection of such goods before they are released. Such goods may be directed to be released, on payment of the appropriate customs duty and on the fulfillment of the conditions prescribed by law - the assessee may plead for for the waiver of the detention and demurrage charges, if any - in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (9) TMI 6
Issues:
1. Delay in filing appeals by Revenue.
2. Confiscation of goods under Customs Act.
3. Customs duty confirmation and penalty imposition.
4. Appeal maintainability against respondents.
5. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
Analysis:
Issue 1: Delay in filing appeals by Revenue
The Revenue filed applications to condone a delay of 1548 days in filing appeals against an impugned order. The order confirmed the confiscation of imported goods valued at Rs. 1,21,34,386 under Section 111(i)(o) of the Customs Act, 1962. Additionally, it confirmed Customs duty of Rs. 3,40,42,415 under Section 72(1) read with Notification No. 53/97, along with interest and penalties under various sections of the Customs Act.
Issue 2: Confiscation of goods under Customs Act
The impugned order found the imported goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(i)(o) of the Customs Act, 1962, due to certain circumstances related to Bills of Entry and W.R. bills of entry. The order confirmed the duty amount and imposed penalties on the involved parties, including the company and its executives, based on the provisions of the Customs Act.
Issue 3: Customs duty confirmation and penalty imposition
The order confirmed the Customs duty amount, interest, and penalties to be paid by the concerned parties under specific sections of the Customs Act. The penalties were imposed on the company, its Chief Executive Officer, and Directors based on their roles in the importation process, as outlined in the adjudication order.
Issue 4: Appeal maintainability against respondents
An appeal was filed against M/s. North East Clothier Pvt. Ltd., but it was found to be not maintainable as the Commissioner of Customs was not aggrieved against the order passed. Subsequent appeals against different respondents were filed with delays, leading to questions regarding the continuity of the appeals and their validity.
Issue 5: Condonation of delay in filing appeals
The appeals filed after a delay of 1548 days were dismissed as no grounds were found to condone the delay. The Tribunal held that the present appeals could not be considered as a continuation of the initial appeal due to its non-maintainability. Consequently, the applications for condonation of delay and the appeals themselves were dismissed.
This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues of delay in filing appeals, confiscation of goods under the Customs Act, confirmation of Customs duty, penalty imposition, appeal maintainability, and the decision on condonation of delay, providing a comprehensive overview of the legal proceedings and outcomes in the case.
-
2012 (9) TMI 4
Denial of grant of licences to to act as Customs House Agent - change in procedures - Held that:- As the 1984 Regulations postulated grant of temporary licence holding of which is a condition of eligibility for appearing in the examination conducted for grant of regular licence whereas the 2004 Regulations do not envisage grant of temporary licence for participating in the process of grant of licence but the applicant is required to clear the written as well as oral examinations to be held in terms of Clause 8 of the regulations. At the same time, the language of the opening paragraph of proviso to Clause 8(1)of 2004 Regulations make it clear that those who have already passed the examination are not required to appear in any further examination - thus the 2004 Regulations would operate prospectively and would not in any manner effect the eligibility and entitlement of those who had qualified the examination held under the 1984 Regulations for grant of licences to act as Custom House Agents - against department.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1213
Issues involved: Substitution of deceased respondent by legal representatives, condonation of delay in filing appeal, refund of seized goods and payment of interest.
Substitution of Deceased Respondent:
An interlocutory application was filed to substitute the deceased respondent Dwarika Prasad Agrawal with his legal representatives, his wife and son. The advocate for the respondent confirmed his appearance on behalf of the legal representatives, and the application was allowed. The necessary correction in the cause title was directed to be made within ten days.
Condonation of Delay:
Another interlocutory application sought condonation of a delay of 91 days in filing the Letters Patent Appeal, which was granted, and the application was disposed of.
Appeal on Refund of Seized Goods:
The Letters Patent Appeal was filed by the Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs and others against a judgment favoring the writ petitioner regarding the seizure of betel-nuts worth Rs.3,50,000. The seized goods were sold for a lesser amount due to perishability, and upon the order setting aside the confiscation, a sum was refunded to the writ petitioner after deducting costs. The learned single Judge directed the appellants to pay the difference amount with interest, which led to the appeal. The appeal was dismissed in limine after extensive hearing, and the interim relief was vacated.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1141
Issues Involved:
1. Non-grant of permission for cross-examination of witnesses.
2. Validity of statements recorded u/s 14 of the Central Excise Act.
3. Reliance on the Tribunal's earlier order regarding breach of principles of natural justice.
Summary:
Issue 1: Non-grant of permission for cross-examination of witnesses
The appellant - Commissioner of Central Excise and Customs challenged the Tribunal's order dated 25th May, 2005, which allowed the respondents' appeals by setting aside the adjudicating authority's order. The Tribunal had previously remanded the matter, directing the adjudicating authority to permit cross-examination of witnesses. However, the adjudicating authority misconstrued the Tribunal's directions, denying the respondents the opportunity to cross-examine all witnesses and placing the onus on the respondents to produce the witnesses themselves. The Tribunal found this to be a breach of the principles of natural justice, as the adjudicating authority relied on testimonies of witnesses who were not offered for cross-examination.
Issue 2: Validity of statements recorded u/s 14 of the Central Excise Act
The appellant argued that the statements recorded u/s 14 of the Central Excise Act were never retracted and were supported by corroborative evidence. However, the Tribunal held that without the opportunity for cross-examination, such statements could not be relied upon. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court judgments to support the principle that testimony of witnesses not offered for cross-examination cannot be used in adjudication.
Issue 3: Reliance on the Tribunal's earlier order regarding breach of principles of natural justice
The Tribunal's earlier order dated 21st February, 2000, had directed the adjudicating authority to allow cross-examination of witnesses. The adjudicating authority's failure to comply with this direction led the Tribunal to conclude that there was a breach of natural justice. The Tribunal examined the demands in relation to each group independently and found that the demands were not justified in the absence of evidence. The Tribunal's conclusions were based on findings of fact after appreciating the evidence on record, and no contrary evidence was presented by the appellant to dislodge these findings.
Conclusion:
The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's findings, holding that the adjudicating authority's reliance on testimonies without allowing cross-examination was a breach of natural justice. The appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's order was upheld.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1109
Issues Involved:
1. Quashing of demands for demurrages, penalty, rent.
2. Direction for clearance of goods without payment of demurrages, rent, penalty, or interest.
3. Alternative relief for clearance of goods on payment of calculated rent.
4. Liability of Customs authorities for demurrages.
Summary:
1. Quashing of demands for demurrages, penalty, rent:
The petitioner sought to quash the demands of demurrages, penalty, and rent for the clearance of 582 MTs of stainless steel angles. The Court, referencing the Supreme Court decision in *International Airports Authority of India v. Grand Slam International*, held that the petitioner is liable to pay demurrages to the Kandla Port Trust. Consequently, the prayer for quashing the demand raised by the respondent did not merit acceptance.
2. Direction for clearance of goods without payment of demurrages, rent, penalty, or interest:
The petitioner sought a direction to clear the goods without payment of demurrages, rent, penalty, or interest. The Court found that the petitioner is liable to pay demurrages as per the law, and thus, no such direction could be granted.
3. Alternative relief for clearance of goods on payment of calculated rent:
The petitioner alternatively sought clearance of goods on payment of calculated rent. The Court noted that the petitioner failed to establish that the goods were warehoused on 11-10-1982. The veracity of the letter dated 23-5-2006 (Annexure P-8) was disputed by the respondent, who contended it was fabricated. Therefore, the prayer for clearance on payment of rent could not be granted.
4. Liability of Customs authorities for demurrages:
The petitioner argued that the Customs authorities should be liable for demurrages due to their default. The Court observed that there were no specific pleadings and prayers against the Customs authorities in the petition. Moreover, the Customs authorities could only be held liable until 9th August 1989 for the first consignment. For the second consignment, the delay was due to the petitioner prosecuting the matter before a wrong forum, which could not be attributed to the Customs authorities.
Conclusion:
The petition was dismissed, and the rule was discharged. The interim relief granted earlier was vacated but extended for eight weeks to enable the petitioner to approach a higher forum.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1089
The Supreme Court allowed writ petitions for an order permitting interrogation by custom authorities in the presence of an advocate at a visible distance. The advocate must be present but sit beyond hearing range. Petitioner must cooperate with the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence for interrogation when called upon.
-
2012 (8) TMI 1086
The Supreme Court dismissed review petitions against an order dated 13th April, 2012, after condoning the delay. The court found no grounds for review and dismissed the petitions. (Case citation: 2012 (8) TMI 1086 - SC)
............
|
9911796707
