|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 381 to 400 of 663 Records
-
2012 (8) TMI 382
Enhancement of import value of goods on the basis of contemporaneous imports - difference between the description of the goods - assessee contended the same to be of reject quality whereas test report held the impugned goods to be of Grade-I quality - Held that:- The discrepancy has not been explained by the appellants. Further, a claim has been made by the appellants that they only ordered for the reject quality goods. This submission appears to have no substance as they have taken delivery of the impugned goods without returning the same to the suppliers, which was required to be done, if the suppliers were at fault in supplying a different quality of goods. Hence, enhancement confirmed. Further, when the quality of the goods itself has been misdeclared, the declared value requires to be rejected. The appeal is otherwise rejected except for reducing the redemption fine and penalty.
-
2012 (8) TMI 381
Whether the goods, namely, automobile parts exported by the appellant is eligible for all industry rate of drawback Held that:- Item steering knuckle falls under chapter 87 of the Customs Tariff and hence the all industry rate of drawback for the said item can not be claimed against goods for which rate has been prescribed under chapter 73 - if a product falls under chapter 87, benefit of drawback is not available merely because the product description matches with those given for goods falling under chapter 73 - appellant is not eligible for duty drawback at all industry rates on the impugned goods under serial nos. 73.29 and 73.30 of the drawback schedule as it stood at the relevant time
Whether the goods already exported are liable to confiscation and if so, whether penalty is imposable - appellant did not furnish the correct description of the goods under export either in the shipping bill or in the export invoice - appellant sought ineligible drawback by mis-declaring the goods - appellant has submitted that in the instant case the goods have not been seized at all the hence they cannot be confiscated Held that:- Section 113 deals with liability to confiscation and not actual confiscation - section nowhere states the goods should be seized to determine the liability to confiscation - merely because the goods have been examined by the central excise authorities does not absolve the appellants of their responsibility of making the correct declarations in the export documents - This can at best a factor for determination of quantum of penalty and not for imposition of penalty per se Penalty reduced
-
2012 (8) TMI 351
Plea for condonation of delay - non-receipt of order due to alleged incorrect pin code mentioned in address - assessee contending pin code to be 110 087 instead of 110 041 - Held that:- On perusal of the record, we find that the appellants themselves have given the address on their letter showing pin code as 110041. Moreover, in appeal memo also they have shown the Pin Code as 110 041 instead of 110 087. As Revenue has dispatched the orders at the given address on 30.7.98 and 29.4.2002 respectively, therefore, we hold that appellants have been served the orders properly and they have not filed the appeal in time. Applications filed for condonation of delay are dismissed.
-
2012 (8) TMI 350
Demand of duties - assessable value - higher value of identical goods - clearance of HCH brand ball bearing imported from China Held that:- Assessing officer has loaded the value based upon the price list of HCH brand ball bearings after giving 30% discount as per the guidelines of Commissioner of Customs (Import) - there was no contemporaneous import showing import of identical goods at a higher value, the rejection of the transaction value was not justified - in the absence of any corroborative evidence of contemporaneous imports, the enhancement of transaction value is not in accordance with the law - assessing officer has not brought on record any evidence of contemporaneous imports Demand set aside
-
2012 (8) TMI 324
Plea for waiver of pre-deposit of penalties - penalty imposed of Rs.13 lakhs u/s 114 and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962 for alleged impersonation by appellant and exporting over-valued goods - assessee contended serious financial hardship and inability to even deposit 25% of the amounts involved - Held that:- Since issue is not free from doubt and considering the fact that the first appellate authority has himself expressed observation and doubt as regards maintainability of penalty under both the Sections of the Customs Act, 1962, we find that the appellant should be put to condition of depositing of Rs.2 lakhs for hearing his appeal by first appellate authority.
-
2012 (8) TMI 323
Import of indoor units of split air conditioners in pre-packed form from Japan denial of benefit of exemption from Special Additional duty of Customs under notification no. 29/2010-Cus Held that:- Notification no. 29/2010 grants exemption to a pre-packaged goods intended for retail sale in relation to which there is a statutory requirement of declaring on the package thereof the retail sale price of such article - indoor units imported by the appellant satisfies those requirements - benefit of Notification no. 29/2010-Cus dated 27.02.2010 is available to the appellant
-
2012 (8) TMI 295
Revocation of CHA licence licence was suspended on the ground that preventive section of JNPT has found the sample of polyester fabric which were imported vide bill of entry 624245 dated 11.01.07 were replaced by some other sample nor seek the classification under CTH 58109290 - Held that:- Neither the directors of appellant firm were examined nor cross examined - Mr. Hotkar, who was the temporary employee was found to be the main person for replacing the samples who was not holding the custom pass. In fact Mr. Hotkar was not authorised by the appellant firm - appellant firm cannot be held liable for the Act committed by Mr. Hotkar who was not an employee of the appellant firm. Moreover, there is no corroborative evidence is brought on record by the department to prove that the appellant or their directors were in the knowledge of the act committed by Mr. Hotkar - action taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) against the appellant is harsh and without considering the true and correct facts - order of revocation of the appellant s CHA licence set aside appeal allowed
-
2012 (8) TMI 294
Goods reached from Pakistan to Amritsar by rail cargo - Notification No.48/2000-Cus. dated 25.4.2000 - import and export through a route other than sea port/ airport or Inland Container Depot or through a Land Custom Station - special order / permission of the commissioner - held that:- Any goods reaching through different channel not known to customs authorities or that reaches India through different channel not permitted by the notification that calls for imposition of duty. Both sides agreed that the goods are not prohibited goods since that is covered by DFRC scheme. On such analogy levy of penalty is uncalled for. Therefore, confirming duty element, penalty is waived.
-
2012 (8) TMI 252
Challenge the Show Cause Notice as issued without jurisdiction and authority - Held that:- The final impugned order has been passed without addressing the question of jurisdiction, is an order which is not sustainable, under the statute. The impugned order is set aside and all the appeals are allowed by way of remand to the adjudicating authority to reconsider the issue afresh.
-
2012 (8) TMI 251
Import of goods related person - goods imported by them were referred to special valuation cell for valuation of the goods Held that:- Therefore, the extra discount received by the appellant is not justifiable and the Commissioner (Appeals) has gone differently on other grounds and held that value has to be arrived as per Rule 7/8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 which is not justified as it is neither the issue nor prayed before him. matter remanded back.
-
2012 (8) TMI 215
Valuation - import of old/used digital multifunction print and copying machines. - goods were not accompanied by the Chartered Engineer's certificate from the load port and hence the value has been re-determined by ascertaining the value from a local Chartered Engineer. The appellants have also, accepted the value determined by the customs authorities as per the assessment of the local Chartered Engineer - The valuation done by the adjudicating Commissioner is upheld.
Penalty confiscation redemption fine - Import of Secondhand Multifunctional Photocopiers - import licensing restrictions - violation of the import restriction Held that:- Repeated offences and that the respondents are repeatedly importing second-hand digital photocopiers without licences, undervaluing the same and in one case even the quantity was found to be mis-declared - fines and penalties imposed by the original authorities in these cases of repeated offences are not unreasonable - no justification for reducing the fine imposed
-
2012 (8) TMI 214
Project import - Inclusion of value of drawings and designs Held that:- department wants to include the value of the drawings and designs in the value of the machinery which has been assessed to duty under Project Imports under Heading No. 9801; at the same time, they do not want to give the benefit of Project Imports for drawings and designs on the ground that, if that value is included it would exceed the value recommended for Project Imports by the sponsoring authority - Drawings and designs are rightly classifiable under Heading No. 49.06 and the benefit of duty-free import under this Heading has to be extended to the goods in question - entire demand is unsustainable in law
-
2012 (8) TMI 176
Frivolous review petition - Review of the order wherein revenue directed to refund the excess fine and penalty consequent to the appellate order to the petitioner within 10 days from the date of the judgment - held that:- the stand of the petitioner in the review petition is totally hyper-technical and unreasonable. When an appellate authority allows an appeal filed against imposition of tax, duty, fine, penalty etc., it is the bounden duty of the assessing authority, as part of a democratic government, to refund the amounts covered by orders of the appellate authority, when appeals are allowed fully or partially. The same shall be refunded even without a formal request for the same.
The reasons put forward by the petitioner in the review petition justifying the insistence on the production of original documents also does not impress me at all. When an import is assessed to duty and penalty and fine are imposed, necessarily, the assessing authority maintains a file in relation to the same, which will contain all the documents in original relating to the levy. When payment is made pursuant to the orders of the assessing authority, details of the same would also be available in that file. When appeal is filed by the importer against the orders of the assessing authority the file will contain orders and details relating to the same also. Therefore, there is no difficulty for the assessing officers to decide the claim for refund based on those documents, when the appeal is allowed in full or in part.
The filing of this review petition itself is an abuse of the process of the court. - Review petition dismissed with cost of Rs. 25000/-
Interest and cost to be recovered from the petitioner in the review petition and all officers responsible.
-
2012 (8) TMI 175
Benefit of Duty Free Import Authorization (DFAI) - Revenue stated that on obtaining DFIA the assessee has availed the credit even if the credit is reversed or paid back along with interest after clearance of the goods - Held that:- As decided in Commissioner of Central Excise, Mumbai- I Versus M/s Bombay Dyeing & Mfg. Co.Ltd [2007 (8) TMI 2 - SUPREME COURT] the Cenvat credit taken if reversed before its utilisation, it amounts to not taking the credit - in the case of DFIA if the credit availed on inputs used in the manufacture of final products is reversed before it is utilised either by reversing the credit or by cash payment with interest, then, it should be treated that the assessee has not availed the credit and accordingly, the benefits under para 4.2.6 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014 cannot be denied while transferring the DFIA.
-
2012 (8) TMI 143
Confiscation of diamonds Held that:- Assessee had produced purchase vouchers in relation to the diamonds - proprietary firm was registered with the Sales Tax department - - in the event of seizure of non-notified goods burden of poof is on Revenue to prove that there was illegal import and inability of the litigant to produce documents showing legal importation does not ipso facto prove that the goods were smuggled - department has failed to discharge their burden to prove that these documents are fabricated and diamonds in question are illicitly purchased - in favour of the appellant
-
2012 (8) TMI 142
Import of computer cases - Customs authorities denied the exemption on the ground that goods contain a USB card and hence a Populated Printed Circuit Board making the goods ineligible for the exemption Held that:- What is contained in the computer case is an extension of PCB for ease of connection. But the same is not an electronic component or Populated PCB since it does not have active and passive electronic components like ICs, resistors, capacitors, relays, switches etc. - mere mounting of the USB port and audio port on a PCB does not make the PCB a Populated PCB - appellants are eligible for the impugned exemption under Notification No.21/2002
-
2012 (8) TMI 136
Evading customs duty - revoking the CHA licence - Held that:- From the records of the case, it is seen that mis-declaration of the weight and consequently the value of the export consignments has been clearly established int his case as can be seen from the panchanama proceedings - Since the logistics support was provided by the CHA firm, they should have been aware of the full details of the consignments under export and the mis-declaration made with regard to the weight, number of pieces, FOB value of exports
As the partner of the CHA firm and two of their employees have clearly admitted to aiding and abetting the fraudulent exports, there is nothing that needs to be proved in the instant case - The entire export transactions were a sham and everyone, the exporter, the CHA the logistics firm and the shipping agent colluded and connived with each other so as to defraud the exchequer as they had retracted their statements, the same was not done immediately or at the first available opportunity but only in reply to the show cause notice issued under the Customs Act - Thus more than 6 months had elapsed between the deposition of the statement and the retraction. It is a well settled legal position that such belated retraction has no sanctity in the eyes of law and has to be treated as pure afterthought - the case against the appellant is built on the statements recorded from their own.
When the cargo was LCL, the CHA directed the shipping line to book it as FCL and also collected FCL charges form the exporter as a consideration for their help and support in committing the fraud. Further in his statement has admitted that he had not obtained copies of the transport document from the transporter/trucker who brought in the export goods for examination and stuffing. Therefore, violation of regulation 13(k) is also established - As it is not a case of minor infractions of the provisions of CHALR but a major active involvement in aiding and abetting fraudulent exports leading to substantial loss of revenue to the exchequer the maximum punishment prescribed in the CHALR is clearly attracted - aginst assessee.
-
2012 (8) TMI 135
EXIM Policy - import of Rough Marble Blocks was restricted and needed a import licence for import Held that:- Licence issued by the competent authority permitting the appellant to import a quantity of 2117.74 MT of Rough Marble Blocks - licence was not produced before the adjudicating authority, the matter needs to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority - appeal is allowed by way remand.
-
2012 (8) TMI 81
Import of explosive - Inspection and Certification agency - General Procedure for Licensing of Restricted Goods - petitioner had issued certificate/form of declaration/undertaking in respect of consignment - Declaration/undertaking that consignment does not contain any type of arms, ammunition, mines shells cartridges, or any other explosive material in any form, either used or otherwise Held that:- Examination of the imported goods by the customs officers revealed that the same contained Eight Cylindrical shaped, military green colour objects having markings as "Rocket 2.75 war-head with motor MK-66 MOD 4 Ammunition, incendiary UM" - Conditions stipulated in paragraph 2.32.1 read with the aforesaid clause relating to certification were not satisfied - writ petition dismissed
-
2012 (8) TMI 80
Refund claims of SAD paid by them under Notification No. 102/2007-Cus. Held that:- Commissioner (Appeals) considered the contentions of the respondents and sanctioned the refund claim but remanded the matter subject to verification of the documents in support of the claim for refund by the adjudicating authority i.e., CA. certificate, balance sheet and other relevant documents - matter remanded to the adjudicating authority to verify the documents in support of the claim of refund and pass appropriate order
............
|
9911796707
