Home Case Index All Cases Customs 2012 2012 This

Law	-- All -- GST Income Tax Benami Property Customs Corporate Laws Securities / SEBI Insolvency & Bankruptcy FEMA PMLA Service Tax Central Excise CST, VAT & Sales Tax Wealth tax Indian Laws
Court	-- Any -- Supreme Court SC Orders / Highlights High Court Appellate Tribunal Tribunal Appellate authority for Advance Ruling Advance Ruling Authority National Financial Reporting Authority Competition Commission of India ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY Commission Central Government Board DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court Commissioner / Appellate Authority Other
Citation	--Year-- 2024 2023 2022 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008 2007 2006 2005 2004 2003 2002 2001 2000 1999 1998 1997 1996 1995 1994 1993 1992 1991 1990 1989 1988 1987 1986 1985 1984 1983 1982 1981 1980 1979 1978 1977 1976 1975 1974 1973 1972 1971 1970 1969 1968 1967 1966 1965 1964 1963 1962 1961 1960 1959 1958 1957 1956 1955 1954 1953 1952 1951 1950 Upto 1949 - -Volume- 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 -
Landmark	Nil - N/A Referred in >= 3 Cases Referred in >= 4 Cases Referred in >= 5 Cases Referred in >= 10 Cases Referred in >= 15 Cases Referred in >= 25 Cases Referred in >= 50 Cases Referred in >= 100 Cases
Order by	TMI Citation Date of Decision

Advanced Search Options

Customs - Case Laws

Showing 361 to 380 of 663 Records

• 2012 (8) TMI 727
  

  Demand for Provisional clearance of goods - Held that:- For provisionally assessing duty the petitioner will deposit 20% of the differential duty in cash while furnishing bank guarantee for the remaining 80% and on fulfilling these conditions and after completing all the other formalities,if any, the goods will be released to him as early as possible and without delay.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 726
  

  Drawback claim – Held that:- Goods were taken for reprocessing after re-importation and reprocessed goods exported cannot be said to be identified as re-imported goods - as per Notification No. 40/94-C.E. Drawback of duty under Section 74 of Customs Act, 1962 can not be allowed since the goods are exported in discharge of export obligation under DEEC Scheme - no infirmity in the impugned Order-in-Appeal - Revision Application is rejected

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 694
  

  Refund - refund claim was rejected only on the ground of limitation and the issue of bar of unjust enrichment was not being examined by the adjudicating authority – Held that:- Refund claims are within time - adjudicating authority has not examined the issue of unjust enrichment - matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 693
  

  Import of Barcode Printers - additional duty of customs under Section 3 of the Customs Tariff Act - whether the appellant are required to affix MRP – Held that:- Whether the shopping malls “which are typical buyers of the imported printers) can be regarded as institutional consumers - Shopping malls, or stockists are not similar to a transporter or a hotel - it is required under the Standards of Weights and Measures (PC) Rules, 1977 to declare on the package of the imported article its retail sale price - goods are liable to value as per provisions of Section 3(2) of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 661
  

  Confiscation of vessel and penalty imposed - alleged violation of Section 111 of Customs Act - Revenue alleged non- fulfilling of Customs formalities with regard to vessel viz no Customs permission, no immigration permission, non fulfilling of visas formalities - appellant requested to take up the matter for adjudication without issuance of SCN and also personal hearing - Held that:- Commissioner could not consider the submissions made now by the Appellants at the time of adjudication, since the Appellants had waived the show cause notice and personal hearing. The submissions made now by the Appellants are required to be considered. In these circumstances, the case is remanded to the Commissioner to consider the submissions made by the Appellants and decide the issue afresh.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 660
  

  Export of wooden furniture components - goods were nothing but sawn timber which is prohibited for export under the Foreign Trade Policy - appellant stated that the respondents had no mala fide intention to export the goods in violation of the export policy – Held that:- On an earlier occasion, the SIIB, had allowed a similar cargo for export and therefore, when the present consignment was entered for export, the respondents had a bona fide belief that the subject goods can be legally exported as furniture parts – order of confiscation set aside and redemption of the confiscated goods for domestic use as ordered by the original authority, but allow redemption on a reduced fine while setting aside the penalty imposed by the original authority - Department’s appeal is partly allowed

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 655
  

  Penalty – confiscation – goods imported as unaccompanied baggage includes the fire arms viz. Air gun, pistol, cartridges etc – Held that:- Goods i.e. firearm & cartridges are restricted for import under the Baggage Rules. Thus the impugned goods being liable for confiscation have been rightly confiscated under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 and imposed penalty under Section 112 ibid - revision application is rejected

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 631
  

  Confiscation of vessel and penalty imposed - alleged violation of Section 111 of Customs Act - Tug Century Star-1 which had towed the vessel Pandav-4(seized) had also towed a Barge (impugned vessel) during the month of November, 2008 - Held that:- It is found that appellants have claimed that the Dumb Barge was imported into India in the year, 2006 pursuant to permission of DG-Shipping's order dated 09.10.2006. Thereafter, the Barge was converted for coastal run by virtue of the permission granted by the Deputy Commissioner of Customs, Paradip dated 20.10.2006, upon payment of duty on entry of the vessels and the permission for carrying cargo to Chittagong was also granted to the Tug and the Barge by the Jurisdictional Customs Authorities. In such circumstances, it is settled law for movements/voyages in or out of the country the Barge, in any event, becomes a foreign going vessel and cannot be said to be imported goods. It is a settled principle that in case the duty has already been suffered, it cannot be demanded again. The penalty is linked with the demand of duty, which will depend on the outcome of the reconsideration. In these circumstances, the case is remanded to the Original Authority to re-examine the above aspects

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 630
  

  Classification - Injection Moulding Machine for manufacture of footwear soles – Held that:- Heading 8477.1000 of the Customs Tariff” specifically covers Injection Moulding Machines therefore, is rightly classifiable under Heading 8477.1000 of the Customs Tariff.

  Anti-Dumping Duty – Held that:- Notification No. 39/2010-Cus excludes only Injection Moulding Machine classified under Heading 8453 of the Customs Tariff - machine in question is not classifiable under Heading 8453 of the Customs Tariff and the same is classifiable under Chapter Sub Heading 8477.1000 of the Customs Tariff. Therefore, the same is liable to Anti-Dumping Duty.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 604
  

  Levy of CVD on Gum Arabic waste imported – Held that:- Gum arabic is a natural gum and not liable for CVD as it is extracted from the tree itself by making hole on the tree and some part of the gum which drops on the soil, that becomes gum arabic waste/rejects and this is the only product they have imported which does not have purity as natural gum arabic is having purity. Therefore, the gum arabic waste/reject is only a natural gum and as per the Board s clarification dated 28/06/2007 CVD is not leviable on gum arabic in raw form. Therefore, they are not liable to pay CVD on the imported goods – appeal allowed

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 574
  

  Import of old and used photocopiers - Once the goods have been released on payment of redemption fine and nothing is left at this stage to consider about the claim of the appellant as to description of the goods disclosed in the bills of entry was proper, there is no scope to discard the order of the authority below except consideration on the quantum of penalty.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 573
  

  Restoration of CHA licence - Fraudulent export of prohibited narcotics drugs - violation of the provisions of Regulation 13 of CHALR, 1984 read together with Regulations 13(b), 13(e) and 19(8) of CHALR, 2004 - The appellant has suffered for a period of 6 years and is ready to give any undertaking to work diligently in the future years. - Difference of opinion - matter referred to larger bench.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 539
  

  Waiver of pre-deposit – alleged that appellant firm has obtained DEEC licence from DGFT by forging the quantity/weight/blend of the fabrics on the shipping bills and obtained that DEEC licence for higher quantity – Held that:- All the relied upon documents/non-relied upon documents have not been supplied to the appellants. When, there is an offence of forgery of the documents, the documents which have been forged and how it has been forged is to be supplied to the person against whom the allegation has been made for rebuttal - there is a violation of principles of natural justice by non-supply of relied upon/non-relied upon documents - matter remanded back to the adjudicating authority to allow the inspection of original records to the appellants or their counsel and give copies of the documents which the appellant may ask after the inspection of the records under his signature and thereafter pass the orders in accordance with the law

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 508
  

  Demand of additional customs duty (CVD) - transaction value u/s 4 versus MRP based value u/s 4A - Held that:- As the goods were imported by the appellant in bulk and cleared for further process to party who undertook the process of packing, repacking, labeling and putting stickers of MRP which is process of manufacturing as per Section 2 (f) of the Central Excise Act, 1944 and finally cleared these goods on payment of Central excise duty as per Section 4A, thus the appellants have rightly discharged their duty liability as per Section 4 of the Central Excise Act, 1944 - in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 507
  

  Revocation of CHA Licence - charges under Article 13(a) of the CHALR 2004 - Held that:- The fact that the authorization from the importer also attested by the bank is fraudulently obtained came to know during the course of investigation when a report from the concerned bank was obtained. Therefore, at the time of clearance of the goods, appellant was under bona fide belief for acceptation the authorization. It is also a fact that at the time of clearance of the goods, the Customs officer has also not objected to the authorization - that the charges under Article 13(a) of the CHALR 2004 stands not proved as the authorization filed by the appellant was not objected by the Customs.

  While giving the personal hearing to the appellant, the Commissioner has not given notice to the appellant that he is not agreeing with the Inquiry Officer's report and the reasons for not agreeing with the report, thus the remaining charges also stands not proved - in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 477
  

  Penalty imposed u/s 112(a) - violation of the provisions of Section 111(m) for mis-declaration of value and violation of the provisions of Exim Policy u/s 111(d) - import of cars not in the possession of the importers for a period of one year - assessee contesting penalty and confiscation of car - Held that:- Since importers nor other parties on whom the penal proceedings were initiated, have filed any appeal against the adjudication order, therefore, it is presumed that they have no grievances against the order of confiscation and imposition of fine and penalties.

  It is undisputed that appellant was fully aware that the cars which were being imported were not in the possession of the importers for a period of one year, still he undertook to execute the instructions given by the Dubai supplier and arranged for the CHA. Since, appellant's knowledge and connivance in the entire transaction of importing second-hand cars without fulfilling the terms and conditions of the import stand clearly established. Therefore, penalty imposed on the appellant u/s 112(a) is fully justified - Decided against assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 446
  

  Refund claim for Redemption find and penalty - Held that:- As Tribunal has ordered for redemption fine and penalty of 10% and 5% of assessed value no room for any interpretation that it does not relate to assessable value of the goods.

  In case of Sl. No. 7 to 8, the quantum of redemption fine and penalty is more than the quantum of penalty imposed at the initial stage the redemption fine and penalty imposed should be restored to the redemption fine and penalty imposed initially - partly in favour of assessee.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 445
  

  Denial of benefit of Project Import Regulations, 1986 - increase of more than 25% in the installed capacity is not achieved - Held that:- The appellant filed the memorandum with the Secretariat of Industrial Approval, Ministry of Industry for substantial expansion of the Project Import from 8.63 lacs tons per annum to 11.29 lacs tons per annum on 18.9.1992 as per Project Import Regulations, 1986, they have started substantial expansion of their project in the first phase by procuring indigenous components and later on when they need for imported components they registered themselves with the Customs department as per Regulation 5 of the Project Import Regulations, 1986. In that view the date of installed capacity is to be taken as the date when the appellant filed the memorandum with the Secretariat of Industrial Approval in the Ministry of Industry.

  If the appellant filed the contract for import of the imported components at the first stage expansion then the appellants are entitled for the benefit of the Project Import Regulations, 1986 under the Customs Tariff Heading 98.01, but if they filed the contract in second phase they are not entitled this is not acceptable, thus the appellants are entitled for the benefit of the Project Import in the second phase also.

  As appellant has complied with the condition of the Project Import Regulations, 1986 therefore the appellants have not violated the provisions of Section 111 (o) of the Customs Act, 1962. Therefore, the 170 computers against which the duty has been confirmed are not liable for confiscation. When the goods are not liable for confiscation, penalty under Section 112 ibid is not leviable. Accordingly, redemption fine and penalty are also set aside.

  As the appellant has conceded to the demand of 170 computers which were installed in their factory, therefore the demand against those computers which are in their office is confirmed.

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 414
  

  Fiscal Penalty imposed for alleged violation of provisions of Section 11(2) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 on nominee directors - failure to fulfill the export obligation under DEPB licenses - Held that:- It is relevant to note that neither in the showcause notice it is alleged nor in the orders impugned in the petition any finding is recorded to the effect that the petitioner, a nominee director had aided or abeted in contravening the provisions of the Act. In the absence of any such finding recorded, imposition of penalty on the petitioner nominee director on the ground that the petitioner has violated Section 11(2) of the 1992 Act cannot be sustained - Decided in favor of petitioner

  ---

• 2012 (8) TMI 413
  

  Claim of refund on the differential amount of duty paid - Commissioner (Appeals) re-remanded the matter - Held that:- The power of remand by the Commissioner (Appeals) has been taken away by amendment to Section 128 of Customs Act, 1962 w.e.f. 11-5-2001, thus Commissioner (Appeals) have to decide the issue himself instead of remanding the matter the lower authority.

  ---

1 ....151617181920212223........ 34