|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 461 to 480 of 663 Records
-
2012 (6) TMI 644
Indo Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement - Duty free clearances - Notification No.2/07-Cus dated 5.1.2007 - non-confirmation to the standard specified in the PFA ACT - Redemption fine of Rs.10 lakhs and penalty of Rs.5 lakh - Held that:- On being intimated about the discrepancies appellant immediately contacted foreign suppler who accepted the re-export of the same, thus the imposition of penalty upon the importer is not justified - reduce the redemption fine in the present case to Rs.3.5 lakhs considering subject matter of earlier proceedings in respect of the same appellant.
-
2012 (6) TMI 614
Appeal against reduction of redemption fine and penalty by Commissioner (Appeals) - assessee alleged of violating provisions of Rule 23 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 - permission to re-export goods stands granted - Held that:- Issue stands rejected by the Tribunal in case of same assessee earlier AY wherein it was held that finding of Commissioner that there is no malafide on the part of the importer does not stand rebutted by the Revenue. Need to re-export of the impugned goods arose only because the importer could not get licence from the Drugs Controller of India. There is no dispute that the goods were correctly declared by the by the appellant. Following the earlier decision, we find no infirmity in the impugned order of reducing redemption fine and penalty - Appeal rejected.
-
2012 (6) TMI 589
Dismissal of Appeal - delay of 2(two) days - Held that:- The bill of entry is dated 13.02.2006 and the date of challan is 13.02.2006 - Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal on the premise that the Cheque is dated 10.02.2006 not giving any finding regarding the date of challan which is 13.02.2006 - it cannot be held that appeal is filed after time limit prescribed - case is remanded o decide the issue on its merit - in favour of assessee.
-
2012 (6) TMI 561
CVD demand on the imported goods based on MRP as the goods were imported in 20 kg packing having no MRP declared on the imported package - assessee contested that the goods will not qualify retail packages as defined under PC Rules and since the ultimate consumers of the imported goods are industrial consumers, the imported product is therefore exempt from affixing MRP on the imported packages as per rule 2A of Standards of Weights and Measures (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 1977 - Held that:- As per the definition of 'Manufacturer' defined under Rule 2(h) of the PC Rules manufacturer includes any person who or which puts, or causes to be put, any mark on ay packaged commodity, not produced, made or manufactured by him and the mark claims the commodity in the package to be commodity produced, made or manufactured by such persons.
The appellants after import of the goods affixed the brand name of “Henkel CAC Pvt. Ltd.” on the imported package which gives the indication that the product in question may be manufactured by the appellant - as claim of the assessee that the goods in question are being sold by them to the industrial consumers and this fact is verifiable from the records that the burden lies on the appellant to establish before the lower authorities that the provisions of Chapter II of the PC Rules are not applicable to the packaged commodity imported by them - a reasonable opportunity of producing evidence before the original authority to prove claim that they are covered under exemption from MRP based assessment under Rule 2A of PC Rules shold be given - decided in favour of assessee by way of remand.
-
2012 (6) TMI 533
Demand for not discharging export obligation - Held that:- As the assessee has produced EODCs issued by DGFT which were not considered by the lower authorities - the matter is remanded back to the original adjudicating authority to verify the EODCs produced.
-
2012 (6) TMI 498
Application for waiver of pre - deposit of duties and penalties - Held that:- Following the ratio of the Tribunal's decision in the appellants own case and after waiving the requirement of pre deposit, the matter is remanded to Ld. Commissioner to decide the case afresh as the assessee have only made a claim for benefit of Notification but have not produced any evidence in support of their claim satisfying the condition of the Notification.
-
2012 (6) TMI 466
Revocation of CHA licence - alleged violation of Regulations 13(d), 13(n) and 19(8) of the CHALR, 2004 - non- verification of contents of export - Held that:- It is found that findings of the Commissioner of Customs in the case of Daroowala Bros and Co., wherein it was held that CHA has performed their job in a casual manner and CHA licence was made operative by forfeiting the security deposit, and in the appellant's case are almost identical. However, in both the cases treatments given are different. The Commissioner of Customs (General) should maintain consistency in passing the orders/decisions and should not follow the policy of pick and choose. In this case, Commissioner of Customs (General) has followed the policy of pick and choose and there is no consistency in decision while dealing the same situation, thereby he revoked the CHA licence of the appellant which cannot be permitted. We do not find any merit in the impugned order, the same is set aside.
-
2012 (6) TMI 432
Recovery of excess duty draw back - The appellant made an application for draw back under Rule 6 - entitlement to claim draw back in respect of IC Diesel Engines exported in terms of Rule 7 - department alleged the claim to fall under Rule 3 of Draw Back Rules – Held that:- It may be noted that all the conditions to be complied with for determination of the drawback rate under Rule 6 and Rule 7 are the same and therefore, the claim should not be rejected only on the ground that the claim was filed under Rule 6 instead of Rule 7 - to claim the benefit under Rule 7, certain terms and conditions have been prescribed and it is for the department to verify the claim of the appellant whether he satisfies prescribed the terms and conditions - matter needs to be remanded back to the adjudicating authority for consideration afresh of the claim of the appellant for sanction of draw back under Rule 7 of the Draw Back Rules and if the appellant is found to be eligible, then sanction the same as per law - the department’s out-right rejection without verification is unacceptable.
-
2012 (6) TMI 416
Application to condone the delay of 985 days in filing appeal - Joint appeal - Held that:- As the main appeal was filed well within the limitation period of 3 months, the present two appeals filed by the partners are required to be treated as supplementary appeals and the delay in filing the same is required to be condoned - as the earlier appeal has been allowed on merits the present appeal being impugned in the main appeal stand set aside allow their appeals - stay petition also gets disposed of.
-
2012 (6) TMI 373
Refund claim of duty drawback - repayment of refund directed on ground that claim of same was beyond the statutory period and therefore was wrongly made - Held that:- It is admitted position that the petitioner had filed an application dated 25.07.2003 addressed to Commissioner of Customs, seeking condonation of delay. By implication it can be assumed that the Assistant Commissioner or some other authority had wrongly assumed jurisdiction and condoned the delay. In case the Commissioner or any other authority was not competent to condone the delay and the delay could have been condoned by the Board, the petitioner should have informed and asked to approach the Board. The said application was required to be dealt with by the competent authority. It is accepted that the power to condone the delay beyond three months is with the Board. Hence it will be appropriate to allow petitioner to file application for condonation of delay to Board.
-
2012 (6) TMI 345
Revocation of CHA licence - violation of provisions of CHALR, 2004 - sub-letting of licence - undertaking various transactions in violation of the CHALR provisions - Held that:- In the instant case, violation of Regulation 12 of CHALR, 2004 - sub-letting of licence - is clearly established since it is clear from the records that Dyaneshwar Bhoir was working independently and was using the licence of CHA for a consideration of ₹ 700/- per consignment. Further, violation of Regulation 13 (b) is proved as CHA firm had shown Dyaneshwar Bhoir as an employee and obtained a customs pass when, in fact, he was not an employee at all. Also, CHA had been blindly signing the customs documents brought in by Mr Bhoir, accordingly, violation of Regulation 13 (d) and (n) are also proved. Similarly the allegation that CHA did not know the importer at all in violation of Regulation 13 (a) is also proved. Therefore, order of revocation of license is upheld - Decided against the assessee.
-
2012 (6) TMI 344
Demand of duty - Purchase of Duty Exemption Pass Book license from third party - DEPB Scrip was obtained by fraud by third party - DGFT cancelled the DEPB scrip - Appellant contended that DEPB scrip purchased in good faith - Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the duty demanded but set aside fine and penalty – Held that:- once penalty does not stand imposed on the ground that there was no malafide on the part of the appellants, it has to be held that there was no intention to evade payment of duty and the same criteria would apply for the purpose of limitation. - Divergent views by two members
-
2012 (6) TMI 313
Importation of plastic scrap - Revenue entertained a view that the plastic scrap importation was contrary to the provisions of Foreign Trade Policy relating to plastic scrap - confiscation and order of re-export of goods - redemption fine and penalty imposed - Held that:- What emerges from CIPET's report is that except for quantity with stickers, balance quantity can be considered as a virgin plastic waste or otherwise and they are not in a position to certify the same. In view of the fact that there was no deliberate intention to import hazardous waste into the country as it emerges from the records, substantial reduction in the redemption fine and penalty would meet the ends of justice for both sides. Accordingly, the redemption fine on the goods is reduced to ₹ 40,000/- penalty on the importer is reduced to ₹ 25,000/- and penalty on the CHA is reduced to ₹ 10,000/-.
-
2012 (6) TMI 284
Non-fulfillment of export obligation in respect of advance licenses - demand of interest on duty liability arising on the goods, imported duty free under the advance licenses - Held that:- It is observed that appellant has moved to High Court against the order of Settlement Commission remanding case back to adjudicating authority. Since, High Court dismissed the petition while upholding interest liability, therefore, it is held that appellant is liable to pay the interest as directed by High Court - Decided against the assessee.
-
2012 (6) TMI 283
Classification - Indicating panel 4 zone with LCD, CTEC indicating panel with LCD I Loop Apollo Protocol (Non-expandable), Indicating panel with LCD Repeater - these have been classified by the authorities as fire alarm under Heading 8531 10 20 applying Interpretative Rule 2 – Held that:- no recourse can be taken to Interpretative Rule 2 when there is a specific entry in the Tariff according to which any goods can be classified applying Interpretative Rule 1 itself. Heading 8531 20 00 comes under the broad category of electric sound or visual signaling apparatus as specified against the main heading 8531 itself. Appeal allowed
Classification - Ionization Smoke Detector - appellants have claimed classification under Heading 9027 80 10 – Held that:- process of ionization itself is based on principle of radiation and that radiation has to be naturally among one of the alpha, beta or gamma rays. The product is described by the appellant in their pamphlet as a smoke alarm and not as an instrument or apparatus for smoke analysis. Hence based on the exclusion notes given in Chapter notes to Chapter 85.31 and specific notes appended to Chapter 90.22, the above said goods will be squarely covered under CTH 90.22.90. ionized smoke detectors are appropriately classifiable under heading 9022 90 and not under Heading 9027 80 10 as claimed by the appellants
-
2012 (6) TMI 255
Shortage of goods found during stock verification - demand imposed - assessee contended that shortage of goods occurred due to fire accident - applicability of Rule 12 of SEZ Rules, 2003 and regulation 28 of SEZ (Customs Procedure) Regulations, 2003 - Held that:- Demand of customs duty foregone does not arise as the goods were in the factory premises when the fire accident took place. It is undisputed that departmental officers have been informed of such accident.
Also Tribunal held in case of Satguru Polyfab Pvt. Ltd (2011 (2) TMI 403 (Tri))that when there is an accidental fire resulting in destruction of goods, it cannot be said that it amounts to use of goods for unauthorized operations. Similarly the second term namely failure to account for also cannot be applied since the shortage has been accounted for by fire accident and no evidence has been brought out by Revenue to show that goods have been procured or released elsewhere. Therefore, impugned order is set-aside - Decided in favor of assessee.
-
2012 (6) TMI 254
Challenging the Powers of first appellate authority to remand the matter back to adjudicating authority - Held that:- As the issue needs to be factually verified by the adjudicating authority as regards export obligation discharge certificate which were not submitted this exercise would be better left to the adjudicating authority, to be done with the documents available in the hands of the respondent as well as the authorities - against revenue.
-
2012 (6) TMI 226
Penalty u/s 112 - Non- clearance of goods by assessee by filing B/E - assessee contended abandonment of goods and that foreign supplier (TIL) has already contracted to sell these goods to another entity(WTPL) - Import General Manifest (IGM) amended accordingly - Held that:- It is seen that appellant herein has clearly been indicated as a person who is not an importer by the action of foreign supplier TIL and WTPL. Further, IGM has also been amended. As the said contract has already broken down and the foreign supplier has sought for change of the importer's name and subsequently also sought for re-export of the goods, in our considered view, the current appellant cannot be visited with any penalty u/s 112 inasmuch as the said provisions will apply only to a situation wherein there is a violation of the provisions of Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962 by an importer.
-
2012 (6) TMI 225
Levy of penalty u/s 114 of the Customs Act is in respect of export cargo for getting undue benefit under DEPB scheme - goods exported was garments - knitted T-shirts- declaring an average value at Rs.175 per piece. However, on enquiry customs found that the average market value per piece will not be more than Rs.40 – Held that:- version of the appellant in respect of the yarn was bogus. violation of S.113 leading to consequent confiscation u/s 113, penalty is levied under S. 114 of the Customs Act. However, counsel for the appellant submitted that penalty is based on estimation of value based on market enquiry. - Penalty reduced from Rs.3 lakhs to Rs.2 lakhs.
-
2012 (6) TMI 201
Bagging charges - inclusion in assessable value of the goods imported - Revenue contended that in case of goods imported in bulk, lying in the Customs area are bagged in the Customs area before clearance, the duty has to be discharged on the bagging charges - Held that:- Tribunal held in favor of assessee in case of earlier AY by holding that taxable event is reached at the time when the goods reach the customs barriers and when the bill of entry for home consumption is filed. The charges incurred by the respondents for bagging fertilizers could not be included in the assessable value as the goods have already landed into the Indian territory, and action of bagging is post-importation activity. Hence the same is followed in present appeal - Decided in favor of assessee.
............
|
9911796707
