2022-TIOL-178-HC-MAD-CUS
Shabeer Enterprises Vs CC
Cus - Matter pertains to import of Black Pepper of Sri Lankan origin, seizure of the same on alleged grounds of over valuation to circumvent a custom notification – Provisional release sought of consignment under Section 110A of the Customs Act, 1962.
Held: In the light of the undisputed position that the matter is directly and squarely covered and in the light of the fact that M/s. Travancore Solvents & Oils case has been made by following orders of Division Bench, there shall be a similar order in this matter also - Prayer in the captioned writ petition deserves to be acceded to by following the ratio of Division Bench in Al Qahir International case - Therefore, the captioned main writ petition and connected W.M.P are disposed of with the directives - Joint Commissioner of Customs is directed to quantify the duty, bond amounts etc., communicate the same to the petitioner forthwith and release the said consignment within one week of said remittance - Issue of waiver of demurrage charges will be governed by the applicable Rules and Regulations: High Court [para 6, 7]
- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-177-HC-MAD-CUS
Map Shipping And Company Vs CC
Cus - Petitioner has challenged the impugned suspension order dated 15.06.2018 for alleged infraction of Custom Broker Licensing Regulation, 2013.
Held: Since the impugned suspension order dated 15.06.2018 has not culminated in the order either revoking the order of suspension or continuing with the order of suspension followed by a proceeding under Regulation 20 of the Regulations, Bench deems it fit to hold that the suspension order has outlived its period of validity inasmuch as it is held that the impugned suspension order is no longer in force - At the same time, liberty is given to the respondent to examine whether, on merits, the proceedings can be initiated under Regulation 20, in accordance with the well settled principles of law which has been repeatedly followed by this Court including the case of Santon Shipping Services = 2017-TIOL-2388-HC-MAD-CUS - Writ Petition stands disposed of: High Court [para 13, 14]
- Petition disposed of: MADRAS HIGH COURT
2022-TIOL-128-CESTAT-AHM
Bhavesh C Patel Vs CCE & ST
ST - The appeal has been filed by appellant against rejection of refund claim filed by them under Section 102 of Finance Act, 1994 - Same was not filed within a period of six months as provided in sub- section (3) of Section 102 of Finance Act, 1994 - Matter has been decided by High Court of Madhya Pradesh in case of MDP Infra (India) Pvt. Limited 2019-TIOL-1935-HC-MP-CX - Therefore, relying on the said decision, no infirmity found in impugned order, same is upheld: CESTAT
- Appeal dismissed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-127-CESTAT-AHM
Gomti Processors Sachin Vs CCE & ST
CX - The issue arises is, whether the unjust-enrichment is applicable where the duty was paid provisionally prior to amendment to Rule 9B of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 brought into statute w.e.f. 25.06.1999 - Duty was paid under provisional assessment during December 1998 to May 1999 - At relevant time, there was no provisions of unjust enrichment in Rule 9B(5) of erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 and the same was inserted from 25.06.1999 - Therefore, provisions of unjust-enrichment cannot be made applicable retrospectively - Hence, refund claim could not have been rejected on the ground of unjust-enrichment - Hence, impugned order is set-aside: CESTAT
- Appeal allowed: AHMEDABAD CESTAT
2022-TIOL-126-CESTAT-DEL
PME Power Solutions India Ltd Vs CC
Cus - Appellant imported the container of RWT from Czech Republic for being kept in exhibition as "Container Water Treatment Plant RWT" - The said import was for promotion and exhibition purpose - Accordingly, same was imported under Notification No. 03/89 - In terms thereof, RWT was to be re-exported within six months from the date of closure of event - Admittedly, appellant could not re-export the same within required period - Hence, requested for time extension for another six months - Appellant could not meet the extended time-limit as well - Letter as annexed on the record shows that while seeking time extension appellant was repeatedly acknowledging that in case of failure to re-export within time extended, they shall be depositing the requisite Customs duty along with interest - The totality of the circumstances are sufficient to hold that the appellant is liable to pay Customs duty upon RWT which was imported on assurance of being used in display for a period and re-export thereafter - However, original adjudicating authority in terms of Section 122 of Customs Act, 1962, has pecuniary jurisdiction to decide the matter with the value of less than Rs. 5 lakh - Apparently, value of impugned matter is beyond Rs. 5 lakh - Hence, it is held that Deputy Commissioner of Customs was not competent authority to pass the O-I-O, Commissioner (Appeals) should also have considered the plea of jurisdiction as was taken before him - Since the order passed without jurisdiction is not sustainable in law as being non-est , none of these orders are sustainable - Matter remanded to the department for being placed before competent authority for appropriate adjudication - Appellant is at liberty to discharge his liability within one month: CESTAT
- Matter remanded: DELHI CESTAT |
