|
Advanced Search Options
Customs - Case Laws
Showing 481 to 500 of 663 Records
-
2012 (6) TMI 177
Differential duty imposed, calculated on the basis of higher density of the furnace oil declared and found - Revenue contended that if any difference in the density of the furnace oil which has been declared and as found in the test report is noticed, the assessee has received the higher quantity based on volume of the furnace oil and thus liable for differential duty - Held that:- Duty liability for the goods imported in a country will depend upon the invoice value at the time of importation of the goods, irrespective of their being shortage of quantity or otherwise, therefore, first appellate authority rightly waived differential duty imposed. See Mangalore Refinery & Petrochem Limited vs CCE (2006 (2) TMI 518 - CESTAT, BANGALORE)- Decided in favor of assessee
-
2012 (6) TMI 151
Claim of refund - notification No. 102/2007-Cus dated 14.9.2007 - learned C.S. attendance was ignored on behalf of the appellant without proper Power of Attorney executed by the company - Held that:- If the respondent satisfy the authority, there is no hurdle to grant refund, if permissible by law - Documentary evidences in support of satisfaction of the notification are to be filed before the adjudicating authority within 6 weeks of receipt of this order or reference to the documents already filed - since burden of proof lies on the respondent to show that conditions of notification are satisfied.
-
2012 (6) TMI 129
Suspension of the CHA licence - appeal against order of suspension - Revenue praying for no interference to the suspension, placing gravity of depositions recorded from various persons and more incriminating evidence gathered in the course of investigation followed by search proceedings - Held that:- We do appreciate that appellant deserves to be provided opportunity of hearing to defend against charges. Granting 4 weeks time for defence to be lead by the appellant appropriate adjudication shall be done by learned Commissioner.
-
2012 (6) TMI 104
Plea for waiver of pre-deposit of duty and penalty imposed on applicants on ground of their role in regard to smuggling of Red Sanders wood of Indian origin - absolute confiscation of goods - Held that:- From facts it is clear that when the container containing the Red Sanders was intercepted, both the Applicants(employees of Jain Logistics) left the Office after handing over the keys to an unknown person and after handing over the unaccounted cash on the next day of the seizure, as per the direction of Director of M/s. Jain Logistics. Therefore, their role cannot be ruled out in the abetment of smuggling of Red Sanders. Further, since they could not produce any documentary evidence in support of their claim for financial hardships, therefore, applicants are directed to predeposit 10% of penalty in each case within eight weeks.
-
2012 (6) TMI 77
Enhancement of assessable value of glass beads (semi-finished) imported for garments at US $0.32 to US $1.00 per Kg.(CIF) on the basis of DOV data - lower assessable value of the contemporaneous import of the similar goods denied on the ground that the appellant have not produced any B/E in support of their contention - Held that:- Now, the Appellant are in a position to submit the bills of entry numbers, which they have obtained through RTI, by evidencing the import at lower assessable value in case of similar goods. In these circumstances, the case is remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) to decide the matter afresh.
-
2012 (6) TMI 76
Doctrine of forum conveniens - Territorial Jurisdiction of High Court - Decision in the matter of New India Assurance Company Limited v. Union of India and Others [2012 (6) TMI 96 (HC)]
Held that:- The finding recorded by the Full Bench that the sole cause of action emerges at the place or location where the tribunal/appellate authority/revisional authority is situate and the said High Court (i.e., Delhi High Court) cannot decline to entertain the writ petition as that would amount to failure of the duty of the Court cannot be accepted inasmuch as such a finding is totally based on the situs of the tribunal/appellate authority/revisional authority totally ignoring the concept of forum conveniens.
Even if a miniscule part of cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of this court, a writ petition would be maintainable before this Court, however, the cause of action has to be understood as per the ratio laid down in the case of Alchemist Ltd. (2007 (3) TMI 382 (SC)).
An order of the appellate authority constitutes a part of cause of action to make the writ petition maintainable in the High Court within whose jurisdiction the appellate authority is situated. Yet, the same may not be the singular factor to compel the High Court to decide the matter on merits. The High Court may refuse to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction by invoking the doctrine of forum conveniens.
The conclusion that where the appellate or revisional authority is located constitutes the place of forum conveniens as stated in absolute terms by the Full Bench is not correct as it will vary from case to case and depend upon the lis in question.
The finding that the court may refuse to exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 if only the jurisdiction is invoked in a mala fide manner is too restricted/constricted as the exercise of power under Article 226 being discretionary cannot be limited or restricted to the ground of mala fide alone.
While entertaining a writ petition, the doctrine of forum conveniens and the nature of cause of action are required to be scrutinized by the High Court depending upon the factual matrix of each case in view of what has been stated in Ambica Industries (2007 (5) TMI 21 (SC)) and Adani Exports Ltd. (2001 (10) TMI 321 (SC)).
The conclusion of the earlier decision of the Full Bench in New India Assurance Company Limited [2012 (6) TMI 96 (HC)] “that since the original order merges into the appellate order, the place where the appellate authority is located is also forum conveniens” is not correct.
-
2012 (6) TMI 54
Rejection of application for renewal of license - Whether the appeal against the order of Commissioner of Customs for rejection under Regulation (11) of CHA 2004 would lie before the Tribunal – Held that:- There is a specific provision for filing of appeal to the Tribunal under Regulation, 23(8) against orders of suspension or rejection of license but there is no such provision in the case of rejection of renewal of license - the period of license is fixed under Regulation 12 and on expiry of the same license can be renewed under Regulation 11 - suspension/ revocation of licence and non-renewal of license are to be treated on different footings - right of appeal is a creature of statute and there being no provision under which a CHA could file appeal before this Tribunal against order rejecting the renewal application – on reading Regulation 9 with Regulation 11 even if an application for renewal is treated as a fresh licence, the Regulations permitted appeal only where an application is rejected under Regulation 9(3)and Regulation 11 does not so provide.
Whether CHA may avail the remedy against the order of rejection of application for renewal of license under sub-regulation (5) of Regulation (9) of the said Regulation – Held that:- It is seen that when a fresh application for issuance of license is filed and the same stands rejected by the Commissioner, there is a specific provision for filing an appeal before the Chief Commissioner of Customs, in terms of clause 5 of Regulation 9 - The CHA license holder is at liberty to file an application before the Commissioner before the expiry of validity period for renewal of the license for a further period of ten years from the date of expiry- discrimination cannot be made on the ground that the application was for renewal of license and not for grant of fresh license.
-
2012 (6) TMI 31
Appeal filed against Establishment Order dated 18.03.10 whereby Commissioner of Customs has suspended licence of the Appellant under Regulation 20(2) of the Customs House Agents Licensing Regulations, 2004 (CHLAR) - Held that:- It is observed that Commissioner has revoked the licence of the Appellant vide his Order dated 13.04.2012. In these circumstances, the Appeal filed by the Appellant against the Establishment Order dated 18.03.10 has become infructuous and is accordingly dismissed.
-
2012 (6) TMI 30
Clearance of imported goods - Allegation of Infringement of trade mark - Trade Marks Act, 1999 - valuation - Held that:- respondents must pass an appropriate order indicating the legal basis on which the action is proposed and also the nature of the action proposed for such perceived violation of law on the part of the respondents after giving a reasonable opportunity to the importer to meet the case against him. - Instead of proceeding to determine the duty leviable on the imported goods by following the appropriate procedure or passing an order of confiscation if they believe that they are justified in the facts and circumstances, the respondents, it appears, are indefinitely detaining the goods without any appropriate order being passed thereon. Such a course of action, is absolutely illegal. respondents are required to take a decision expeditiously either to make a regular assessment or a provisional assessment or a decision to confiscated the goods in question if it is permissible under law after following appropriate procedure or provisionally release the goods under Section 110-A of the Customs Act. Writ petition allowed
-
2012 (6) TMI 7
Petition for adjudication of matter relating to the imported second hand Digital Multifunction Print, Copying Machines, Photocopier Machines, spares and accessories - goods detained by custom for want of import license - Held that:- In view of the fact that the goods had already been released by way of the interim orders passed by this Court on finding that goods in question would not fall under the `restricted or prohibited category of goods, as they had been imported under the freely importable category. No licence or permission is needed for such imports, hence, it is found to be appropriate to direct the respondents to adjudicate the matter relating to the goods in question and to pass appropriate orders thereon, as expeditiously as possible.
-
2012 (6) TMI 6
Exemption Notification - categorization - duty free import of medical diagnostic equipment - Petitioner failed to fulfil the continuous obligation – authority has proceeded to reject the application for re-categorization in category 1 instead of category 2 for the reason that the Petitioner had initially been categorized in category 2 - Deputy Director General has observed that the Petitioner has never been approved as a charitable hospital either by the DGHS or the Union Ministry of Health and Family Welfare – Held that:- Petitioner falls within the description of a hospital run or substantially aided by a charitable organization. Having regard to the fact that the Petitioner has been registered as a Public Charitable Trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950 since 1953 and also holds an exemption under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act, 1961, ground on which the Application for change in categorization was rejected by the Deputy Director General, is ex facie contrary to the law as expounded by the Supreme Court. circumstance that the notification dated 1st March 1988 had come to an end cannot be a ground to reject the plea for re-categorization. Petition allowed by setting aside the impugned order. Deputy Director General shall reconsider the Application submitted by the Petitioner for re-categorization under category 1
-
2012 (5) TMI 794
The Supreme Court of India issued an order granting permission to the Petitioners to implead the State Bank of India as a newly added Respondent. The Petitioners were directed to restore the Importer-Exporter Code in favor of Respondent No.1, allowing them to re-export goods subject to conditions imposed by the High Court. Proceedings in the contempt matter against the Petitioners and officials were to be kept in abeyance until further notice. The case was listed for further proceedings after service is complete.
-
2012 (5) TMI 786
The Delhi High Court issued an order in the case of VIPIN SANGHI. The petitioner sought consideration and disposal of their representation pending before the respondents, which was directed to be done within two weeks. The petition was disposed of accordingly.
-
2012 (5) TMI 770
Supreme Court dismissed the special leave petition, condoned delay. No grounds for interference found.
-
2012 (5) TMI 769
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal in the case with citation 2012 (5) TMI 769 - SC. Judges were Mr. H.L. Dattu and Mr. Chandramauli Kr. Prasad.
-
2012 (5) TMI 739
The Supreme Court dismissed a review petition against an order dated 21st February, 2012, stating that no case for review was made out. The review petition was dismissed.
-
2012 (5) TMI 722
Issues: Appeal against the order of confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalty u/s Customs Act.
Summary:
1. The High Court reviewed the order of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, which allowed the appeal of the respondent, setting aside the order for confiscation of seized goods and imposition of penalty.
2. The Tribunal detailed the recovery of mobiles and earphones of foreign origin, highlighting the lack of valid acquisition documents, and noted that the burden was on the Revenue to prove the goods were smuggled, as they were not notified goods under the Customs Act.
3. The Tribunal emphasized the need for evidence to substantiate the allegation of smuggling, referencing a previous case to support its conclusion that the seized goods were freely traded in the market without restrictions in India.
4. The appellant Department argued that the burden shifts to the possessor to prove payment of lawful duty if the goods are liable to customs duty and have not suffered duty, citing a judgment of the Karnataka High Court and the scheme of the Customs Act.
5. The Court discussed the proof required to establish goods as smuggled, mentioning circumstantial evidence such as the condition of goods at seizure, packaging, labeling, and transportation.
6. It was highlighted that confiscation should not be justified solely on the absence of knowledge or documents regarding duty payment, especially when there is no evidence to prove the goods were smuggled.
7. Ultimately, the Court found no substantial question of law necessitating determination and dismissed the appeal.
-
2012 (5) TMI 688
Issues Involved:
1. Request for retesting of seized samples.
2. Validity of the orders passed by the Addl. Session Judge.
3. Fairness and impartiality of the investigation.
4. Applicability of Section 80 of NDPS Act and Section 25 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940.
Summary:
1. Request for Retesting of Seized Samples:
The petitioner sought directions for retesting the seized samples at Central Forensic Science Laboratory, Hyderabad or Central Revenue Control Laboratory, New Delhi, arguing the initial test by Directorate of Forensic Science, Gandhinagar (DFS) was inconclusive and incorrect. The petitioner claimed the seized material contained 'Mephedrone Hydrochloride' and not 'Methamphetamine Hydrochloride' as per the DFS report.
2. Validity of the Orders Passed by the Addl. Session Judge:
The petitioner challenged the orders dated 28.3.2012 and 20.4.2012 passed by the Addl. Session Judge, Ahmedabad, which rejected the request for retesting. The court found the investigation fair and impartial, with DFS confirming the substance as Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, attracting offenses under the NDPS Act.
3. Fairness and Impartiality of the Investigation:
The court noted the detailed and systematic investigation by DRI, Ahmedabad, and Central Excise, Sangli, which included scientific evidence and searches at the premises of M/s Kamud Drugs Pvt. Ltd. The DFS, Gandhinagar, a laboratory of national repute, confirmed the presence of Methamphetamine Hydrochloride, and no further testing was deemed necessary at this stage.
4. Applicability of Section 80 of NDPS Act and Section 25 of Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940:
The petitioner argued for the applicability of Section 25 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, which allows for retesting of samples. However, the court held that Section 80 of the NDPS Act does not bar the application of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act but operates independently. The NDPS Act provides a comprehensive procedure for dealing with narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances, and the court found no merit in the petitioner's request for retesting under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
Conclusion:
The court rejected the petition, finding no illegality in the investigation or the orders passed by the Addl. Session Judge. The prayer for retesting of the seized samples was deemed premature and misconceived, and the investigation carried out by DRI, Ahmedabad, was considered fair and impartial. The petition was dismissed with no costs.
-
2012 (5) TMI 626
The Bombay High Court quashed and set aside the impugned orders in a writ petition, restoring the matter to the Policy Interpretation Committee for fresh consideration. The judgment was made on May 3, 2012, with no order as to costs.
-
2012 (5) TMI 607
Issues involved:
The appeal and stay application against order-in-original u/s 65/2011-12 dated 23/01/2012 for violation of Customs Act, 1962.
Details of the Judgment:
Issue 1: Confiscation under Section 113(g) of the Customs Act, 1962
The Commissioner held goods valued at &8377; 1,16,82,808/- liable to confiscation under Section 113(g) for loading goods on a vessel without proper permission. The penalty imposed on the appellant/exporter, CHA, and Shipping Line under Section 114(iii) was contested by the appellant.
Issue 2: Appellant's Argument
The appellant argued that the responsibility for loading goods onto the vessel lies with the person-in-charge of the conveyance, not the exporter. They cited relevant judgments to support their contention that they had no control over the goods after entering the Customs area.
Issue 3: Revenue's Contention
The Revenue argued that the appellant violated Sections 50 and 51 of the Customs Act by filing the shipping bill after the vessel had sailed. They contended that the exporter cannot shift all responsibilities to the shipping line and should have completed formalities before the vessel's departure.
Judgment Analysis:
The Tribunal noted that the goods were loaded and the vessel sailed before the shipping bill was filed, violating Section 113(g) of the Customs Act. The appellant's failure to file the shipping bill before the vessel's departure constituted an omission under Section 114(iii), leading to liability for penalty.
The Tribunal distinguished previous cases where shipping bills were filed before vessels sailed, emphasizing the importance of obtaining a let export order before goods are exported. The appellant's argument regarding lack of mens rea for penalty imposition was dismissed.
Referring to CBEC's Customs Manual, the Tribunal highlighted the exporter's responsibility to obtain a let export order before goods are exported. Citing precedents, the Tribunal held that exporting goods without a let export order renders them liable for confiscation.
Conclusion:
The Tribunal directed the appellant to make a pre-deposit of &8377; 2 lakhs within four weeks, with the balance of the penalty waived upon compliance. The recovery of the penalty was stayed during the appeal's pendency.
............
|
9911796707
