Customs Act case law

1. Customs - TMI - 204657 - HC

Syed Julbi Versus The Commissioner of Customs - (MADRAS HIGH COURT )

Confiscated goods - There is no question of any duty on the goods which were sold by
the respondent and the levy of Customs duty of Rs.3,94,487/- on the petitioner is
unwarranted - It is respectfully submitted that the goods were sold as per the provisions
of Section 110(1A) taking into consideration, the depreciating nature of its value, if it is
prolonged to be kept in the godown - Thus, the intrinsic value of the cell phones was
protected by disposing of the same u/s 110(1A) of the Customs Act, 1962 - If the cell
phones were to be disposed now, it could fetch much lower value - The only option to the
department is to refund the sale proceeds (i.e cum duty price) after deduction of duty, fine
and penalty which is a statutory liabilities under the provision of Customs Act and the
procedure laid down in the Act is legally carried over - Hence, the contention of the
petitioner is legally untenable - If the petitioner is so aggrieved, he can always filed an
appeal to Commissioner (Appeals) u/s 128 against the impugned order. Hence, the writ
petition stands dismissed - No costs.

2. Customs - TMI - 204656 - Tri

M/s.Khanna Paper Mills Ltd. Versus CC, Amritsar - (CESTAT, NEW DELHI)

Confiscation - DEPB benefit - The claim of the appellant is that prior to amendment on
27.1.06, the paper exported by them in reels and rolls also satisfied the description under
entry 459B of DEPB schedule and that the clarification of the DGFT supports the said
view - Commissioner has held that the export have been misdeclared and DEPB scrips
have been sought for and obtained fraudulently and imports have been made using
invalid DEPB scrips - If it was felt so, it would have been appropriate that the customs
authorities should have taken steps to get the DEPB scrips cancelled by making reference
to the DGFT authorities who issued the scrip - The DEPB scrips have not been got
cancelled through DGFT authorities - Appeals are allowed

3. Customs - TMI - 204655 - HC

HALDIA PETROCHEMICALS LTD.Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

(PORT) - (CALCUTTA HIGH COURT )

Pending decision - Double Member Bench is not available - The grievance is that the
petitioner is unable to pursue its remedy in appeal due to non-availability of the Double
Member Bench at the Tribunal in Kolkata. - , since Double Member Bench is not
available, the grievance of the petitioner is justified - finds support from the judgment in
Yeshanand Filaments - Therefore, in the interest of justice, the writ petition is disposed of
by directing the respondents not to give effect to the order in original passed by the
respondent No. 1 till the regular bench becomes available in Kolkata or till the
application for stay of the petitioner in connection with the appeal presented before the
Double Member Bench of the Tribunal is proceeded with, whichever is earlier