2021-TIOL-1308-HC-DEL-CUS
Chen Hsui Yun Vs DRI
Cus - Vide order dated 10.2.2021, Sessions Court had set aside the order granting permission to the petitioner to go abroad - Petition is filed under Section 397 read with Section 482 Cr.P.C - Petitioner is seeking setting aside of the order dated 10.2.2021 passed by Principal District and Sessions Judge, New Delhi in Criminal Revision Petition - It has been vehemently argued by the petitioner that sister of the petitioner has met with an accident and Metropolitan Magistrate granted permission to go aboard on the basis of those documents - There is no serious challenge to the medical grounds made by the petitioner in the application which was filed before the Chief Metropolitan Magistrate, on the basis of which petitioner was allowed to travel abroad - In the reply filed by the respondent, it appears that respondent is not averse to the foreign travel of the petitioner if the petitioner is directed to deposit 50% of the amount recovered from her in the form of Indian currency - In the instant case, according to the respondent, amount of USD 90000 was recovered from the petitioner which was around Rs.65,00,000/- in Indian currency - The petitioner in the instant case is a lady, aged about 54 years, and there is nothing on record to show that she was previously involved in these types of activities - The condition to deposit 50% of the recovered amount would be quite onerous - Therefore, justice would be met if the petitioner, in the facts and circumstances, is allowed to travel abroad to her country, i.e. Taiwan, for a period of six months i.e. from 12.06.2021 to 11.12.2021 on deposit of amount of Rs.15,00,000/- lakhs in the form of an FDR in the name of Registrar General of this Court, and also subject to conditions - Revision petition stands disposed of: High Court [para 9, 10]
- Petition disposed of :DELHI HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1307-HC-MAD-CUS
Fuso Glass India Pvt Ltd Vs Assistant DGFT
Cus - Order impugned is issued by the Joint Commissioner under the provisions of the Customs Act, confirming the demand of customs duty and also imposing penalty – Petitioner seeks quashing of the said order.
Held: Right of appeal is a valuable right of a person - The legislatures intended to prescribe an appellate remedy in order to ensure that the orders passed by the original authority or scrutinize and the justifiability and the legality of those are tested by the higher authorities of the department - This being the legislative intention for enacting the law, more specifically, prescription of an appellate remedy, then such a right cannot be denied nor be dispensed with by the High Court by exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India - It is needless to state that the appellate authority is empowered to adjudicate both the facts as well as the legal grounds raised by the respective parties - In the present case, the appeal lies before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) before whom the legal practitioners are permitted to test the cases - When the litigants are having the benefit of legal assistance through the legal practitioners, then such a remedy must be exhausted by the aggrieved persons before approaching the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India – Importance of an appeal under a statute cannot be undermined by the High Court by dispensing with the appellate remedy - Writ petition stands dismissed: High Court [para 10, 11, 12]
- Petition dismissed : MADRAS HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-1306-HC-MAD-CUS
CC Vs Sanket Praful Tolia
Cus - Issue is whether the Officers of the Directorate of Revenue Intelligence are proper officers for the purpose of Section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962 and as to whether they are empowered to issue demand notice under Section 28 of the Act - Civil miscellaneous appeals have been filed by the Commissioner of Customs u/s130 of the Customs Act, 1962 against the common order passed by the CESTAT praying that the order be set aside and the matter be remanded/restore the appeal to the CESTAT for fresh consideration of the matter on merits once the case of M/s. Mangali Impex reaches finality.
Held: In the case of the Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin vs. The Customs, Excise & Service Tax Appellate Tribunal and others [C.M.A.(MD) Nos. 375 to 379 of 2018], a Division Bench of this Court, had an occasion to test the correctness of an identical order passed by the Tribunal and by a common Judgment, dated 04.10.2019, set aside the order of the Tribunal and restored the appeals to the file of the Tribunal to be kept pending and await the decision of the Supreme Court and it was also made clear that the appellant - Department shall not initiate any coercive action against the respondents / assessees - Above decision can be fully made applicable to the facts of the present case - Accordingly, the civil miscellaneous appeals are allowed and the impugned final order dated 20.03.2018, passed by the Tribunal, are set aside and the appeals are restored to the file of the Tribunal with a direction to keep the appeals pending and await the decision of the Supreme Court - It is made clear that the appellant - Department shall not initiate any coercive action against the respondents / assessees and await the final decision in the appeals, which have been restored to the file of the Tribunal: High Court [para 7, 8]
- Miscellaneous appeals allowed : MADRAS HIGH COURT
2021-TIOL-317-CESTAT-MUM
BR Steel Products Pvt Ltd Vs CCE
CX - The issue arises is as to whether the ceramic colours cleared by appellant for export as well as DTA are similar; whether benefit of Notification No. 23/2003-C.E. can be extended to the impugned goods and whether extended period can be invoked - The goods exported and the goods cleared are described as ceramic colours - There is not even an iota of doubt that the goods cleared by appellant in DTA are nothing but the goods which are similar to the goods exported well within the meaning assigned to the same in paragraph 6.8 of FTP - Manufacturing activity is same for both type of colours - Similarity of goods is established beyond reasonable doubt by test report got conducted on impugned goods for subsequent period - The difference in goods only being that of concentrated or diluted - Both of them are named ceramic colours only - Test reports indicated that they have similar composition as rightly held by the Commissioner for subsequent period - Therefore, the goods exported and the goods cleared by appellants are similar - Moreover, the fact that Development Commissioner has issued permission is not denied - As regards to the issue of limitation, when the description is ceramic colours, in both export as well as DTA clearance documents, department was within their rights to call for clarification from Development Commissioner or the appellants so as to satisfy themselves - This having not been done, it is not open for the department to invoke extended period, alleging that the appellants have suppressed some information, after considerable lapse of time: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: MUMBAI CESTAT |
