Skip to content


Judgment Search Results Home > Cases Phrase: customs act 1962 Year: 2016 Page 1 of about 1,116 results (0.172 seconds)

Aug 23 2016 (HC)

Commissioner of Customs (Air), Chennai Vs. P. Sinnasamy and Another

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Aug-23-2016

..... adverting to the substantial question of law, "whether gold is a prohibited item within the meaning of the provisions of the customs act, 1962?" and after considering the statutory provisions under the customs act, 1962 and foreign trade (development and regulations) act, 1992 and public notices in no.51, dated 27.10.1997 and no.54, dated 04.09.1997, the hon' ..... of this court held as follows: 13. further, when the goods were confiscated under section 111(d) and 111(i) of the customs act, 1962, the question of provisional release under section 110 of the customs act, 1962, does not arise. therefore, this court is of view that only after the completion of adjudication process, the adjudicating authority would decide whether ..... 2016, on similar lines, we have considered a case, under section 111(d) of the customs act, 1962, dealing with provisional release. instant case deals with section 125 of the customs act, 1962. on the scope and powers of the customs authority, under the provisions of the customs act, 1962, we have considered relevant provisions, notifications issued and answered the issues called for. we are ..... horns, etc. the authorities seized the same. adjudicatory proceedings ended in confiscation. contention of the appellant therein, before the high court, was that section 125 of the customs act, 1962, does not provide for confiscation of goods, other than prohibited goods. repelling the said contention and following om prakash bhatia's case (cited supra), at paragraph 6, after .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 29 2016 (HC)

M/s. Amritlakshmi Machine Works and Another Vs. The Commissioner of Cu ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Jan-29-2016

..... to deal with the legal issues. 47. in the context in hand, the parties have confined their submissions principally to the interpretation of section 112(a) of the customs act, 1962 (for short the act ). learned counsel for the appellant would submit that simultaneous penalties cannot be imposed on the partnership firm and the partners. he submits that the decision of the division ..... larger bench. 45. by the referring order of the division bench, the following questions of law are referred for the opinion of the larger bench: (i) whether, under the customs act,1962 and particularly in exercise of the powers conferred by section 112(a) thereof, simultaneous penalties on both the partner and partnership firm can be imposed ? (ii) whether, the judgment ..... firm. the principles which have been enunciated by the supreme court were sought to be distinguished, however, on the ground that unlike in the case of the fera, the customs act, 1962 contains a separate chapter on offences and prosecutions and that hence, the deeming fiction can only be confined for the purposes of prosecutions under the chapter. hence, it was urged ..... pieces of bearings as detailed in the notice should not be confiscated under the provisions of section 111(d) of the customs act, 1962 read with the foreign trade (development and regulation) act, 1992 and under section 111(m) of the customs act, 1962; and without prejudice to above for the reasons of liability to confiscation of goods under section 111 as to why penalty .....

Tag this Judgment!

Aug 01 2016 (HC)

M/s. Sterlite Industries (India) Ltd. represented by its Associate Gen ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

Decided on : Aug-01-2016

..... holding the field and were not quashed or set aside. in the teeth of such notifications, the legislature stepped in to clarify the position that if the functions of the customs act, 1962, then, all such notifications, have been validly issued and enforced. they enable the parliament to clarify that the officers mentioned therein shall be deemed to be the proper officers ..... copper in copper concentrate used in the copper products diverted to domestic market should not be held liable for confiscation under section 111 (o) and 111 (d) of the customs act 1962 for violation of the conditions of the notifications and provisions of the foreign trade policy subject to which they were allowed clearance and as the goods are not available for ..... the fourth respondent dated 08.06.2010 and 09.06.2010 inasmuch as respondents 3 to 6 lack jurisdiction to enquire into the alleged offences under the customs act, 1962 and the foreign trade regulation act, 1994 read with the exim policy and in any way have disqualified themselves to enquire any further into the matter in view of the personal bias and ..... a matter exclusively of the concern of the central excise department. 13. mr.b.vijay karthikeyan, learned counsel for customs, referred to amendment to section 28 of the customs act. section 28 of the customs act, as amended, reads as follows: 2. in section 28 of the customs act, 1962, after subsection (10), the following sub-section shall be inserted, namely:- (11) notwithstanding anything to the contrary .....

Tag this Judgment!

May 03 2016 (HC)

Mangali Impex Ltd. and Others Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Delhi

Decided on : May-03-2016

..... 19th august 1996. it was observed inter alia as under: the goods imported and cleared duty free were thus rendered liable for confiscation under the provisions of customs act, 1962 and the customs (preventive) commissionerate created for the purpose of prevention of smuggling and detention of cases or smuggling including commercial frauds is thus (sic) competent to investigate and ..... are being considered to address the matter, it has been decided by the board that henceforth all show cause notices under section 28 of the customs act, 1962 in respect of cases investigated dri/customs preventive formations are required to be issued by jurisdictional commissioners from where imports have taken place. board also desires the field formations to examine ..... the constitutional validity of section 28 (11) of the customs act, 1962 ( act )which was inserted by the customs (amendment and validation) act, 2011 ( validation act, 2011 ) with effect from 16th september 2011. in terms of section 28 (11) of the act, all persons appointed as customs officers under section 4 (1) of the act prior to 6th july 2011 shall be deemed to have ..... passed the following interim order: we notice that sub-section (11) of section 28 of the customs act, 1962 was introduced through the customs (amendment and validation) act, 2011 on 16th september 2011. previously, the provisions of section 28, which were introduced by the finance act, 2011, which came into effect on 1st april 2011, did not contain sub-section (11). .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 21 2016 (HC)

M/s. Auto Creaters Vs. Union of India and Others

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Nov-21-2016

..... to understand the controversy raised in the present writ petition, it would be necessary to make note of the relevant provisions of the customs act, 1962. chapter xiv-a of the customs act, 1962 deals with settlement of cases. this chapter contains sections 127a to 127n and was inserted w.e.f. 01-08-1998 by ..... that the petitioner had not filed a bill of entry as stipulated in clause (a) of the 1st proviso to section 127b(1) of the customs act, 1962. 12. even otherwise, we find that the impugned order is not sustainable on the grounds of breach of the principles of natural justice. on perusal ..... to accept the submission of mr. dwivedi, it would go against the very spirit for which chapter xiv-a was brought into force under the customs act, 1962. in the facts of the present case, admittedly the second bill of entry (no.2128700) was filed before the petitioner made its settlement application ..... who has passed the impugned order. all the above authorities viz. respondent nos.2 to 4 exercised powers and functions under the provisions of the customs act, 1962 (for short the act ) and its allied statutes. (b) it is the case of the petitioner that in the normal course of business it imported air freshners ..... (i) whether the application was in respect of a 'case' within the meaning assigned in the clause (b) of section 127a of the customs act, 1962? (ii) whether the applicant has paid the additional admitted duty liability along with the interest as required by clause (c) of the first proviso to .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 2016 (HC)

Under Water Services Company Limited and Others Vs. Union of India and ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-16-2016

..... well as the annexures thereto. before we deal with the present controversy, it would be necessary to make note of certain provisions of the customs act, 1962 and more particularly chapter xiv-a thereof, which deals with settlement of cases. this chapter contains sections 127a to 127n and was inserted w.e ..... to the 1st proviso to section 127b(1), and accordingly sent the matter back to the proper officer in terms of section 127-i of the customs act, 1962 for disposal of the scn as required under law. it is this majority view that has been impugned in this writ petition. 4. in this ..... rs. 10,000/- and rs.15,000/-, be imposed on petitioner nos.3 and 2 respectively. immunity was also granted from prosecution under the customs act, 1962. as far as the other two members are concerned, they disagreed with the findings of the first member basically on the ground that the petitioners ..... by all the three petitioners, the office of the 3rd respondent issued a notice dated 29th october, 2013 under section 127c(1) of the customs act, 1962 inter alia directing the petitioners to explain in writing as to why these applications should be allowed to be proceeded with. by the said notice, ..... receiving the said scn, the petitioners decided that they did not want to contest the same and settle their case as per the provisions of the customs act, 1962. accordingly, in or around 22nd october, 2013, all three petitioners filed 3 separate settlement applications. even though the scn demanded duty in the sum .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jul 01 2016 (HC)

N. Ponnappan Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Customs Tuticorin Customs ...

Court : Chennai Madurai

Decided on : Jul-01-2016

..... fine, the writ petition is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. liberty is granted to the respective parties to approach the adjudicating authority/proper officer under the customs act, 1962 or to seek appropriate remedies under the general law, civil law or criminal law and to seek redressal of their grievances, if they so desire/advised. the connected miscellaneous ..... counsel for the fifth respondent contends that the petitioner after seeking redressel on his grievance before the authorities concerned, thereafter, is to look into the other options available under the customs act, 1962 and before that, the filing of the writ petition is not per se maintainable. 11. the submissions of the sixth respondent:- 11.1. the learned counsel for the sixth ..... . the second respondent's contentions:- according to the learned counsel for the second respondent, 18 containers are lying in its warehouse at tuticorin and as per section 63 of the customs act, 1962, it is entitled to 'payment of rent' and warehouse charges. in fact, the writ petitioner and the fifth respondent claim to be the owner. 8. the submissions of the ..... or import manifest by the person who is required to file the import manifest or import report as per the provision of sub-section (1) of section 30 of the customs act, 1962, penalty should invariably be administered if the same is not corrected within permissible time limit, as per the legal provisions considering such filing as improper filing. the cases should .....

Tag this Judgment!

Nov 04 2016 (HC)

M/s. Rajeswari International Vs. The Commissioner of Customs, Custom H ...

Court : Chennai

Decided on : Nov-04-2016

..... dated 21.06.2013 it was stated that the same has been made in exercise of the powers conferred under section 146(2) of the customs act, 1962 in super-session of chalr, 2004, except in respect of things done or omitted to be done before such super-session. thus, what ..... under regulation 22. it is further submitted that when cblr was notified in exercise of the powers conferred under section 146(2) of the customs act, 1962 and in super session of the chalr, an exception was carved out in respect of things done or omitted to be done before such super ..... appellate tribunal established under sub-section (1) of section 129 of the act. cblr:- in exercise of the powers conferred by sub-section (2) of section 146 of the customs act, 1962 (52 of 1962), and in super session of the customs house agents licencing regulations, 2004, except as respect things done or omitted ..... to be done before such super session, the central board of excise and customs hereby makes the following regulations. 13. in terms ..... findings have been rendered by the respondent, which appear to be based on the statements recorded from various witnesses/noticees under section 108 of the customs act. to examine these contentions, a thorough consideration of the factual position is required. the facts are seriously disputed and to consider the same, .....

Tag this Judgment!

Jan 05 2016 (HC)

Manawat Plastics Pvt. Ltd., through its Director Bhawana Manawat Vs. T ...

Court : Mumbai Nagpur

Decided on : Jan-05-2016

..... and reliefs as claimed cannot be granted. 10. the questions of law sought to be raised by the appellant in this appeal under section 130 of the customs act, 1962, are as under : (i) whether the customs, excise and service tax appellate tribunal was right in relying upon the contents of board's circular no.4/2004-cus dated 16.01.2004 when the ..... b.p. dharmadhikari, j. 1. the appellant assessee has filed this appeal under section 130 of the customs act, 1962, assailing the order dated 12.05.2014 passed by respondent no. 1 the customs, excise and service tax appellate tribunal (cestat) and seeking conversion of shipping bill under deec scheme to drawback scheme to avail export benefit. the cestat in the impugned order ..... also dated 24.04.2002. it has noted that while are-1 carried certificate from the range officer, the shipping bill was with an endorsement of the assistant commissioner of customs while clearing goods for export. based on these certificates, drawbacks and rebates were sanctioned by the assistant commissioner, i.c.d., nagpur and the assistant commissioner, central excise division ..... no. 4 of 2004 dated 16.01.2004 permitted such conversion only when benefit under duty exemption entitlement certificate scheme (deec scheme) is denied by dgft/ ministry of commerce or customs authorities. after hearing the consultant for the appellant assessee, the cestat took note of the contention that the exported goods were examined, their value was verified and the quantity .....

Tag this Judgment!

Sep 16 2016 (HC)

Shelf Drilling International Inc. (Formerly known as Sedco Forex Inter ...

Court : Mumbai

Decided on : Sep-16-2016

..... and proceedings in the writ petition as well as the annexures thereto. before we deal with the present controversy, it would be appropriate to set out certain provisions of the customs act, 1962. section 27 deals with a claim for refund of dues and inter alia stipulates that any person claiming refund of any duty or interest paid by him or borne by ..... counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, submitted that the impugned order is wholly perverse and directly contrary to the provisions of section 27a of the customs act, 1962. he laid great emphasis on section 27a which deals with interest on delayed refunds which inter alia stipulates that if any duty ordered to be refunded under sub-section (2 ..... , 2014. the refund claim was processed and refund was granted to the petitioner on 23rd june, 2014 which was well within three months as stipulated in section 27a of the customs act, 1962. hence, the petitioner was not entitled to any interest. it is aggrieved by this order that the petitioner is before us. 12. in this factual backdrop, mr. prakash shah, learned ..... short the refunding authority ) purporting to hold that the petitioner is not entitled to any interest on the refund granted to it, under the provisions of section 27a of the customs act, 1962. according to the petitioner, the impugned order is contrary to the order in appeal no.mum-custm-smp-196/2015-16 dated 27th october, 2015, passed by the commissioner of .....

Tag this Judgment!


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //