2016-TIOL-1937-CESTAT-MUM + Story
NARENDRA LODAYA Vs CC: MUMBAI CESTAT (Dated: July 08, 2016)
Cus - Appellant is situated outside the country & has not filed the Bill of entry nor subscribed to the veracity of its contents - All the transactions preceding filing of Bill of Entry u/s 46 would fall outside the ambit of any obligation under the Customs Act, 1962 - Penalty not imposable u/s 112: CESTAT [para 8, 9, 10, 11]
Appeal allowed
2016-TIOL-1605-HC-DEL-CX
HONDA CARS INDIA LTD Vs UoI: DELHI HIGH COURT (Dated: July 27, 2016)
CX - Failure to make the mandatory pre-deposit as envisaged in section 35F of the CEA, 1944 - Petitioner seeks to bring the present case within the exceptional category warranting the Court's interference under Article 226 of the Constitution.
Held: Court is unable to view the present case as an exceptional category where the Court should exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to grant relief notwithstanding the amended Section 35F of the CE Act - Petition as well as application dismissed: High Court [para 5, 6]
Petition dismissed
NDPS - DRI case - Seizure of Heroin - both appellants sentenced to undergo RI for ten years with fine of one lakh each by the Special Judge - appeal to High Court. Held: Law on this aspect is that "stringent the punishment stricter the proof" - Statements recorded under Section 67 NDPS Act do not inspire confidence - These have not been corroborated or substantiated - there are severe deficiencies, inconsistencies and discrepancies in the case, statement of the Investigating Officer without corroboration from other members of the raiding team and independent witnesses cannot be believed to base conviction for stringent provisions of the Act - In such like cases, the prosecution evidence has to be examined very zealously so as to exclude every chance of false implication - The prosecution has failed to establish the commission of offence by the appellants beyond reasonable doubt - It cannot take benefit of appellants' inability to establish their defence pleaded in 313 Cr.P.C. statements beyond reasonable doubt - Mere apprehension of the appellants is not enough - The evidence is scanty and lacking to establish that the contraband was recovered from the possession of the appellants in the manner alleged by the prosecution on the said date and time - Appellants deserve benefit of doubt - Resultantly, the appeals filed by the appellants are accepted - conviction and sentence are set aside - appellants to be released forthwith: High Court [para 15 to 19]
Appeals allowed
RAJESH TREHAN Vs PRINCIPAL CC: DELHI HIGH COURT (Dated: July 26, 2016)
Cus - SCN was issued to the Petitioner by the DRI wherein, inter alia, it was stated that the imported goods declared as LED TV panels did not have the essential character of such complete LED TVs and that the benefit of duty exemption was wrongly claimed with respect to the Bills of Entry under which the said LED TV panels were imported - also allegations of misdeclaration and undervaluation & Petitioner was called upon to pay the differential customs duty with interest and penalty - Petitioner seeking re-examination of the seized goods for a proper and detailed inventory to be drawn up and which request is vehemently opposed by DRI.
Held: Court is unable to appreciate how the re-examination of the goods is going to prejudice the Respondents particularly if it takes place within a reasonable time frame without delaying the completion of the adjudication - Further, it is not going to ipso facto result in release of the goods in favour of the Petitioner - Court directs that within a period of two weeks from today, and in the presence of a representative of the Petitioner and one representative each of the DRI and the Customs, a re-examination will take place of the seized goods which are in the custody of the Petitioner on superdari - above directions are without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the adjudication proceedings - Writ petition and application disposed of: High Court [para 18, 19, 20]
Petition disposed of
DUGAR OVERSEAS PVT LTD Vs UoI: DELHI HIGH COURT (Dated: July 25, 2016)
Cus - Challenge to constitutional validity of of Sections 27A and 28AA of the Customs Act 1962 & notifications 75/2003-Cus(NT), 18/2011-Cus(NT) and 33/2016-Cus(NT) - whether respondent justified in adopting a discriminatory approach in the matter of interest by awarding only @6% on delayed refunds while charging @15% on late payment of duty - a part of the cause of action arises within the jurisdiction of Delhi High Court as one of the adjudicating authorities mentioned in the SCN is CC, ICD, Tughlakhabad, New Delhi - preliminary objection raised by respondent negatived - Notice issued, reply to be filed within four weeks - matter to be listed on 28 November 2016 - no stay of the adjudication of the SCN dated 16th April 2014, which will proceed in accordance with law - final order passed in the adjudication proceedings, limited to the extent of the issue of interest, will be subject to the outcome of the present petition - application disposed: High Court [para 4, 7, 8]
Application disposed of
MIXED BUZZ
India imported services worth USD 84 bn last fiscal
India, China bilateral trade tilted in favour of China
ASI digs out 'treasure trove' from India's history
