|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 401 to 420 of 663 Records
-
2012 (8) TMI 56
Import - misdeclaration goods have been declared as copper dross and the copper content declared is 85% approx. - On actual testing, it is seen that in respect of goods declared as copper dross, the copper content varies between 96 and 97% - Held that:- Mis-declaration on the part of the importer appellant with respect to the copper content under importation - appellant has not placed any purchase orders for the products, especially when the copper content in the product is the main criteria for valuation of the product and the same is much higher than those declared in the import documents - misdeclaration is clearly evident from the records - appellant directed to make a pre-deposit
-
2012 (8) TMI 55
Import of vessel - vessel was sent out of the territorial waters for the purpose of repairs seizure of vessel provisional release of vessel petitioner liable to pay duty in respect of the modification/upgradation that has taken place which amount is computed on a provisional basis Held that:- Petitioners would be required to pay duty assessed provisionally in the amount of Rs. 12.77 crores and for that purpose, they would be at liberty to avail of the credit Bank guarantee reduced from 20% to 10%
-
2012 (8) TMI 29
Penalty 100% EOU imported goods duty free by availing benefit of Notification No. 53/1997-Cus - these duty free goods against the advance license to another 100%EOU - adjudicating authority has held that the company, being 100%EOU trading unit could not have sold the goods under advance license as per the provisions of Para 9.21 of the Export Import Policy Held that:- According to CBEC Circular No. 49/2000-Cus dated 22.5.2000 that EOU trading units were allowed to supply the goods to other EOU/STP units against valid advance license or specific customs entitlements - company had cleared the goods imported by them on which the customs duty was foregone to advance license holders EOU penalty set aside
Regarding penalties on the Directors Held that:- In the absence of any duty liability on the main Company, the provisions of Section 112 and 117 for imposition of penalties on the Directors cannot be invoked - to that extent it imposes penalty on the appellants herein, is liable to be set-aside
-
2012 (8) TMI 28
Redemption fine - penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act import of 2 Nos Off Road Mining Truck with accessories and filed bill of entry for warehousing - imported vehicle has been confiscated for violation of licence on the ground that vehicle is Left Hand Drive and is not permissible under the explanatory note to Chapter 87 Held that:- Goods allowed to be warehoused and at the time of ex-bonding the appellants shall produce required licence with endorsement thereon and after it is found in accordance with the law the adjudicating authority shall consider the same and if those are found in order shall release the goods - warehousing of the goods allowed
-
2012 (8) TMI 7
Claim of revalidation of the scrip under the SFIS - Held that:- The terms of the SFIS and the authorization issued under it states that if the goods had reached in the India by the date of expiry of the authorization i.e.30.04.2011, the petitioner could have qualified for extension to facilitate their clearance - in this case The goods in fact reached on 26.05.2011 - a fact known to the petitioner when it booked them after entering into contract with the foreign supplier, on 18.04.2011 - against assessee.
-
2012 (8) TMI 6
Valuation of imported goods - limitation alleged that appellant has not filed any appeal within the prescribed period of 60 days before the Commissioner (Appeals) - appellant has filed an appeal within the extended period of limitation of 30 days. The contention of the appellant (for condonation of delay) has not considered by the Commissioner (Appeals) holding that the reason stated is not satisfactory - matter remand back to the Commissioner (Appeals) to pass an order on merits after giving reasonable opportunity to the appellants
-
2012 (7) TMI 1152
Issues involved: Interpretation of order of Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, valuation of confiscated betel nuts, determination of refund amount, calculation of statutory interest.
The High Court of Patna, in the case, interpreted the order of the Customs Excise and Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal dated 29.8.2001, which became final after dismissal of Tax Case No.26 of 2002 by the Court on 8.9.2006. The Tribunal had held that the confiscated betel nuts were not of foreign origin, entitling the writ petitioner to consequential reliefs.
Upon reviewing all relevant facts, the learned Writ Court rejected the customs authorities' argument that the auctioned sale price of Rs.3.64 lakhs should be the payable amount to the writ petitioner. Instead, the Court accepted the valuation of the betel nuts as Rs.21,33,500/- based on the seizure list, directing a refund of this amount with compound interest at 6% per annum from 30.8.2001, the date of the CEGAT decision.
The High Court found no evidence indicating a different market price for the betel nuts or any depreciation due to the writ petitioner's fault. It noted the absence of documentation or disclosure of the auction date when authorities claimed the sale for Rs.3.64 lakhs. Consequently, the Court upheld the Writ Court's decision on the valuation and refund amount.
In light of the circumstances, the High Court declined to intervene and dismissed the appeal, affirming the Writ Court's ruling on the refund and interest calculation.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1123
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the notification dated 01.03.1988 issued u/s 25 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Alleged violation of terms and conditions of the notification by the appellants/petitioners.
3. Proposal for an alternative scheme to replace the original notification's conditions.
Summary:
Issue 1: Validity of the Notification Dated 01.03.1988
The controversy arises from a notification issued on 01.03.1988 by the Central Government u/s 25 of the Customs Act, 1962. This notification allowed four categories of hospitals to import medical equipment without paying customs duty, provided they offered free medical assistance to persons with a monthly family income of less than Rs. 500. The categories were detailed by the learned Single Judge in the impugned order dated 11.02.1999.
Issue 2: Alleged Violation of Terms and Conditions
The notification also stipulated that benefits could be annulled and equipment impounded if terms were violated. The appellants/petitioners allegedly violated these terms, leading to the impounding of equipment and recovery of customs duty. This resulted in extensive litigation, including the impugned order dated 11.02.1999. The Supreme Court, in Civil Appeal No. 7284/2005, remitted the case back to the DGHS for fresh consideration, emphasizing adherence to natural justice principles.
Issue 3: Proposal for an Alternative Scheme
The court proposed an alternative scheme to provide succor to the poor, ensuring free medical assistance from the best facilities, as originally intended by the notification. Key points of the scheme include:
- Free Inpatient Treatment: Hospitals to provide free inpatient treatment for at least 20% of their inpatients annually, covering medical, surgical, and diagnostic procedures, including boarding and lodging.
- Eligibility Criteria: Extending free treatment to all BPL card-holders, replacing the original income criterion of Rs. 500 per month.
- Operational Period: The scheme to be operational for 20 years from 01.01.2012, with annual obligations based on the preceding year's inpatient count.
- Publicity and Records: Hospitals to announce the free treatment facility prominently and maintain detailed records for inspection by the DGHS or a nominated agency.
The proposed scheme was to be considered by the Central Government, with a decision expected by 31.10.2011. Hospitals opting for the scheme would not face further action under the original notification and would have their machinery returned and customs duty refunded.
Conclusion:
The appeals and writ petitions were disposed of in terms of the proposed alternative scheme. Hospitals not opting for the scheme or if the scheme was not approved by the Central Government, would be proceeded against as per the Supreme Court's order in Sir Gangaram Trust Society's case. Final orders in such cases were expected within six months.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1121
Issues Involved:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction
2. Delay in Raising Jurisdictional Objection
3. Merits of Jurisdictional Claim
4. Application of Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C.
Summary:
1. Territorial Jurisdiction:
The petitioner, Directorate of Revenue Intelligence (DRI), challenged the order dated 8.12.2003 by the learned ACMM, New Delhi, which discharged the accused due to lack of territorial jurisdiction. The ACMM relied on the judgment in Kanwarjit Singh vs. Union of India, where the Punjab & Haryana High Court held that the Delhi Court did not have jurisdiction as the offence was committed in Haryana.
2. Delay in Raising Jurisdictional Objection:
The DRI argued that the application for discharge was barred as it was filed after 12 years from the date of taking cognizance. The ACMM failed to consider that the accused had participated in the proceedings for 12 years before raising the jurisdictional objection, which should have been raised at the threshold.
3. Merits of Jurisdictional Claim:
The DRI contended that the Delhi Court had jurisdiction because the substantial actions constituting the offence, such as the search, seizure, and preparation of panchnama, were conducted in Delhi. The ACMM erred in not recognizing the difference between the Panipat case and the present case, where the jurisdictional question was raised after a significant delay.
4. Application of Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C.:
The ACMM incorrectly applied Section 245 (2) Cr.P.C. to discharge the accused for lack of jurisdiction. The court should have examined whether the charges were groundless, which was not done. The law under Sections 460 and 462 Cr.P.C. indicates that proceedings are not vitiated by lack of jurisdiction unless serious prejudice is shown. The ACMM's order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the trial court to proceed from where it had discharged the accused.
Conclusion:
The order of the learned ACMM dated 8.12.2003 was set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the trial court. The parties were directed to appear before the learned ACMM on 31st July, 2012.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1080
The Gujarat High Court heard a case regarding the National Calamity Contingent Duty (NCCD) and its inclusion in the computation of Brand rate of Drawback. The court formulated substantial questions of law related to the nature of NCCD as a duty of Customs and the appeal process under the Customs Act, 1962. The court issued notice to the respondents for further proceedings.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1025
Issues involved: Whether CESTAT was justified in declining to condone the delay in filing the appeal against the original order.
Summary:
The petitioner initially failed to enclose a doctor's certificate explaining the inability to move during a specific period in the appeal memo. Consequently, the Tribunal refused to condone the delay. Subsequently, the petitioner submitted the required certificate, but the Tribunal still rejected the application. Despite the delay in furnishing the certificate, the Court believed that justice would be served by condoning the delay and hearing the appeal on its merits, with the condition of paying costs. The Court quashed the Tribunal's orders and directed the petitioner to pay costs to the respondents within four weeks. Upon payment, the CESTAT was instructed to proceed with hearing the appeal.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1018
Issues Involved:
1. Misdeclaration of imported goods.
2. Undervaluation of imported goods.
3. Continuance of criminal proceedings post departmental adjudication.
Summary:
Misdeclaration of Imported Goods:
The petitioners were accused of misdeclaring Poly Carbonate Sheets (PC Sheets) imported under Open General License, alleging that the goods were made from fresh polymer of high resin instead of degenerated scrap. The Department of Revenue Intelligence (DRI) issued a show cause notice and initiated departmental proceedings and a criminal complaint u/s 132 and 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The petitioners contended that all necessary documents (Bill of Entry, Invoice, Packing Lists, and Bill of Lading) accurately described the goods as PC Sheets. The CESTAT Tribunal, in its final order dated 4-11-2011, found no misdeclaration, stating that the tariff heading covers all kinds of polycarbonate sheets, and non-mention of sheets being made out of recycled material does not amount to misdeclaration.
Undervaluation of Imported Goods:
The second allegation was that the declared price of the imported PC Sheets was lower than the international/domestic price of the raw material. The CESTAT Tribunal concluded that the charge of undervaluation was dependent on the misdeclaration charge. Since the misdeclaration was not established, the undervaluation charge also failed. The Tribunal noted that the goods were cleared after proper examination and the value was adjusted to match contemporaneous values, which was not challenged by the department.
Continuance of Criminal Proceedings Post Departmental Adjudication:
The petitioners argued that continuing the criminal complaint after being exonerated in the departmental adjudication proceedings was a gross abuse of the process of law. The Supreme Court in Radhe Shyam Kejriwal v. State of West Bengal & Anr. held that if a party is exonerated in departmental proceedings on merits, criminal prosecution on the same facts cannot continue. The High Court observed that the departmental adjudication requires a lower quantum of proof (preponderance of probabilities) compared to a criminal trial (beyond reasonable doubt). Given the exoneration in the departmental proceedings, it was deemed impossible for the department to establish the charges in a criminal trial.
Conclusion:
The High Court quashed Criminal Complaint No. 25/1/03 and the consequent proceedings against the petitioners, citing abuse of the process of law and the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Radhe Shyam Kejriwal's case. The writ petition was allowed, and all pending applications were disposed of.
-
2012 (7) TMI 1013
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals as no grounds were found for interference with the impugned judgment. (Citation: 2012 (7) TMI 1013 - SC Order)
-
2012 (7) TMI 1012
Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are:
1. Whether the letter dated February 7, 2005 of the Superintendent of Customs could be considered as an appealable order?
2. Whether the minimum obligation on the part of the Revenue was to supply a copy of the bill of entry to the respondent when the triplicate bills of entry were already with the respondents?
Issue 1:
The case involved M/s. Ruchi Soya Industries Ltd. filing three Bills of Entry for import, which were proposed to be assessed under Section 14(2) of the Customs Act, 1962. The respondent challenged the final assessment order dated 7-2-2005 by filing an appeal before Commissioner (Appeals), Customs, Jamnagar under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) dismissed the appeal as time-barred, but the CESTAT, Ahmedabad allowed the appeal and set aside the Order-in-Appeal, stating that the letter dated 7-2-2005 could not be considered an appellate order. The Tribunal remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision on merits.
Issue 2:
In response to the order passed by the High Court, the Superintendent of Customs informed the respondent about the final assessment under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, directing them to pay a differential duty. The respondents requested a copy of the final order along with the bill of entry, which was provided to them on 16-12-2005. The Tribunal held that the communication on 16-12-2005 showing the bill of entry to the respondent should be considered as the relevant date for challenging the same. The Tribunal further stated that the letter dated 16-12-2005 cannot be considered an order passed in appeal by the Commissioner. The Court agreed with the Tribunal's view, dismissing the appeal and ruling in favor of the assessee, stating that the appeal lacked merits.
-
2012 (7) TMI 993
Enforcement of the order-in-original dated 12th April 2012 - Revenue states that the Committee of Chief Commissioners of Customs has on review of the order-in-original dated 12th April 2012 directed the Commissioner to file an appeal against the said order-in-original dated 12th April 2012 - Held that: - appeal against the order-in-original dated 12th April 2012 with an application for stay would be filed before the CESTAT on or before 15th August 2012 - petition dismissed - decided against Petitioner.
-
2012 (7) TMI 975
Issues involved: Challenge to detention order u/s 3(1) of Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974 based on grounds of insufficient material, mechanical passing of order, and delayed disposal of representation invoking Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India.
Challenge to detention order based on insufficient material and mechanical passing of order:
The detention order was issued against the detenu, who was involved in an attempt to export goods under a mis-declared scheme. The Customs Department alleged that the detenu, along with others, over-valued goods for higher export drawback benefits. The detaining authority issued the detention order after considering the material placed before her. The High Court rejected challenges to the detention order, stating that the material was sufficient and the order was not passed mechanically.
Delayed disposal of representation invoking Article 22(5) of the Constitution of India:
The appellant made a representation to revoke the detention order, which was rejected after a delay of one month. The High Court did not examine this delay properly. The detaining authority explained the delay in disposing of the representation, attributing it to procedural delays within the department. However, any unreasonable and unexplainable delay in considering a representation is considered fatal to the continued detention of the detenu as per Article 22(5) of the Constitution. Citing established legal principles, the Supreme Court concluded that the detention order could not be sustained due to the delay in disposing of the representation and set it aside, leading to the allowance of the appeal.
-
2012 (7) TMI 966
Issues Involved:
1. Whether the endorsement "said to contain" in the bill of lading means there was no admission or acceptance of the total number of cartons by the carriers.
2. Whether the fourth defendant, Madras Port Trust, is answerable for the suit claim.
3. Whether the fifth defendant, CONCOR, is liable to the suit claim.
Summary:
Issue 1: Endorsement "said to contain"
The court examined whether the endorsement "said to contain" in the bill of lading (Ex.A4) meant that the carriers (defendants 1 and 2) did not admit or accept the total number of cartons declared by the consignor (third defendant). The court referenced previous judgments, including *M/S. Thakur Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Food Corporation of India* and *Nippon Yeesen Kaisha Ltd. v. Union of India*, which held that such endorsements indicate that the carrier does not assure the correctness of the declared quantity. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to prove that 250 cartons were actually shipped, and thus, the carriers and bailees (defendants 4 and 5) could not be held liable for the short delivery.
Issue 2: Liability of Madras Port Trust
The court considered whether the fourth defendant, Madras Port Trust, was liable for the suit claim. The court noted that the container was a Full Container Load (FCL) and was meant for "door to door" delivery. The original seal of the container was intact when it reached the Container Freight Station (CONCOR), and the Customs inspection was done at CONCOR premises. The court found that the Port Trust did not take charge of the cargo and thus could not be held liable for any alleged loss.
Issue 3: Liability of CONCOR
The court evaluated the liability of the fifth defendant, CONCOR. It was established that the container arrived at CONCOR with the original seal intact, which was broken by Customs in the presence of the Clearing Agent of the first plaintiff and resealed. The next day, the container was opened, and a shortage of 50 cartons was found. The court found no evidence of tampering with the seal while the container was in CONCOR's custody. The court concluded that CONCOR could not be held responsible for the alleged loss as there was no tampering with the container.
Conclusion:
The court allowed both appeals, setting aside the trial court's judgment and decree against the fourth and fifth defendants. The suit against them was dismissed, and the connected miscellaneous petition was closed.
-
2012 (7) TMI 963
Investigation - Anti-dumping ... ... ... ... ..... For Respondent Mr. G. Umapathy, Adv. Mr. Rakesh K. Sharma, Adv. O R D E R The special leave petition is dismissed as not pressed.
-
2012 (7) TMI 927
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal against the decision of the Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi in Custom Appeal Nos. 791-792 of 2008-Cus.
-
2012 (7) TMI 922
Issues involved: Challenge to communication for provisional release of imported goods, applicability of Customs Act provisions, availability of alternative remedy under section 128 of the Customs Act.
Challenge to communication for provisional release of imported goods: The petitioner challenged a communication stipulating conditions for the provisional release of goods imported by them, contending that the conditions were harsh and contrary to previous court dicta and CBEC instructions. The petitioner argued for the application of principles from previous judgments and Customs Regulation 2011 for release of goods pending adjudication, highlighting a lacuna in the Customs Act regarding the need for a pending adjudication or show cause notice.
Applicability of Customs Act provisions: The respondent opposed the relief sought by the petitioner, suggesting that the petitioner should pursue an appeal to the Commissioner Customs (Appeals) under section 128 of the Customs Act. The respondent maintained that the goods in question were mis-declared and could only be released based on the conditions specified in the impugned communication.
Availability of alternative remedy under section 128 of the Customs Act: The court directed the petitioner to pursue an appeal to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) for adjudication, balancing the petitioner's interest with the need for an alternate remedy. The Commissioner was instructed to treat the writ petition as an appeal and decide on the release of goods within two weeks. The respondent acknowledged a previous representation by the petitioner but agreed that it should not hinder the fresh adjudication process.
This judgment addressed the challenge to conditions for provisional release of imported goods, clarified the applicability of Customs Act provisions, and directed the petitioner to seek an alternative remedy under section 128 of the Customs Act through an appeal to the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) for timely adjudication.
............
|
9911796707
