CUSTOM&EXCISE&SERVICE TAX
Delhi HC Grants Relief To Foreigner Whose Rolex Watch Was Seized By Customs, Says Waiver Of Show Cause & Hearing In 'Standard Form' Not Lawful
The Delhi High Court has reiterated that authorities making a traveller waive show cause notice before confiscation of goods, etc. under Section 124 of the Customs Act 1962, on a mere proforma, is not lawful.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma thus granted relief to a permanent resident of Hong Kong, whose Rolex wristwatch valued at ₹30,29,400/- was confiscated by the Customs Department at the airport.It observed, “This is another case where the Department is...
Transaction Value Is Not The Only Basis For Assessment Of Duty: CESTAT
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the transaction value is not the only basis for assessment of the duty. The Bench of Dilip Gupta (President) and P. V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “transaction value is not the only basis for assessment of the duty. The Valuation Rules and Section 14 of the Act provide for rejection of transaction value. When rejecting the transaction value, the customs officer does not...
Two Or More Bills Of Entry Or Shipping Bills Cannot Be Taken Together And Assessed: CESTAT
The New Delhi Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that two or more bills of entry or shipping bills cannot be taken together and assessed. The Bench of Dilip Gupta (President) and P. V. Subba Rao (Technical) has observed that, “Two or more Bills of Entry or Shipping Bills cannot be taken together and assessed. The only exception made in the law are the Project Imports under Project Import Regulations, 1986.” The Bench further stated that,...
Customs Department Must Intimate Party About Disposal Of Confiscated Property Both Via Email And On Mobile: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that the Customs Department must ensure that the intimation of disposal of detained or confiscated property is given to the concerned party both via email as also the mobile number.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma reasoned this will ensure that a party who succeeded in Court or Tribunal against the detention of the property is not deprived of their properties.The observation was made while dealing with a case where despite the order...
Delhi High Court Orders Customs To Release Traveller's Gold Worth ₹20 Lakh, Iphone, Playstation & More Over Failure To Issue SCN
The Delhi High Court recently ordered the Customs authorities to release a traveller's gold worth over ₹14 lakh and other branded articles like iPhone, PlayStation, etc. over the authority's failure to issue him a show cause notice.Section 124 of the Customs Act, 1962 contemplates issuance of a show cause notice before confiscation of goods.The Petitioner had landed at Delhi International airport with his family. He was intercepted carrying a gold chain, another three layered gold chain with...
Short Tax | Timeline For Issuing Show Cause Notice U/S 73(2) Is Mandatory, Not Discretionary: Andhra Pradesh High Court
The Andhra Pradesh High Court has held that the time permit set out under 73(2) of the AP GST Act for issuance of show cause notice in relation to alleged short payment of tax, etc. is mandatory in nature.A division bench of Justices R Raghunandan Rao and Harinath N. added that any violation of that time period cannot be condoned and would render the show cause notice otiose.It observed, “The GST Act, has put in place certain protections for tax payers. One of the primary protections is that...
No Unfettered Right To Cross-Examine Person Making Statements U/S 138(B) Customs Act: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has made it clear that a person facing charges under the Customs Act, 1962 does not have an unfettered right under Section 138B, to cross-examine the informant or person making incriminatory statements.Section 138(B) of the Customs Act of 1962 deals with the admissibility of statements made during customs proceedings.A division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma relied on Kanungo & Co. v. Collector of Customs, Calcutta and Others (1983) where a...
Imposition Of Conditions By Customs For Provisional Release Of Seized Goods 'Discretionary': Delhi HC Tunes Down 130% Bank Guarantee
The Delhi High Court has held that the imposition and severity of conditions imposed by the Customs Department for permitting provisional release of seized goods is “discretionary” in nature.In doing so, a division bench of Justices Prathiba M. Singh and Dharmesh Sharma scaled down the alleged onerous condition imposed on an importer, for executing a Bank Guarantee of 130% of the deferential duty.It observed, “The calculated amount for the bank guarantee would be substantial and may almost...
Baggage Rules Apply Only To Luggage Of International Travellers, Not To 'Reasonable Amount' Of Jewellery Worn In-Person: Madras HC
The Madras High Court has made it clear that Baggage Rule, 2016 framed under the Customs Act, 1962 apply only to the baggage carried by an international traveller.Justice Krishnan Ramasamy observed that the Rules cannot be extended to articles like jewellery, “carried on the person” of a traveller.The bench observed, “The Customs Act, 1962, enables the Central Government to make Rules to the extent of the articles carried in the baggage of a passenger and not for the articles, which were carried...
Adjustment Of Refund Against Confirmed Demand During Pendency Of Appeal Amounts To Coercive Recovery: CESTAT
The Chandigarh Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that adjustment of refund against a confirmed demand during the pendency of an appeal amounts to coercive recovery. The amount adjusted from the total refund sanctioned to the assessee is refundable to the assessee at the rate of 12% per annum computed from the date of deposit till the date of its refund, stated the bench. Regarding the adjustment of the amount from the total refund...
Dept Cannot Consider Refund Claim Unless It Specifies Which Notification And Provision It Has Been Sought Under: CESTAT
The Ahmedabad Bench of Customs, Excise, and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has stated that the department cannot consider a refund claim unless it is specified under which notification and provision the same has been sought. The Bench of Somesh Arora (Judicial) has observed that, “The lapse of non-filing of refund under proper notification separately for June 2013 cannot be termed as mere procedural lapse. The department cannot be expected to consider refund claim if it is not...