CUSTOMS ACT, 1962

Facts: The assessing officer rejected the claim for exemption from payment of sales tax in respect of the stated sales of imported cigarettes from the stock, as the cigarettes were sold to outgoing vessels from the bonded warehouse within the landmass of the State of West Bengal. The authority found that it was not a sale in the course of import as claimed by the assessees after that before the revisional authority, the only contention pursued was that there was no sale within the State of West Bengal or even in India because the buyer had no right to consume the goods before the ship crossed the territorial Waters of India and the process of import was not complete at the time of sale to the foreign¬going ship and the transaction was a sale in the course of import. Resultantly, the sold goods were not taxable under the concerned West Bengal Sales Tax laws because the goods never entered the local area of the State of West Bengal, crossing the customs frontiers of India

Held: The stated sales or appropriation of goods kept in bonded warehouse within the territory or landmass of the State of West Bengal are neither in the course of import or export and were effected beyond the customs land or ports station area. Therefore, in law, it was a sale amenable to levy of sales tax under the 1954 Act and the 1994 Act, as the case may be, read with Section 4 of the CST Act. As a result, these appeals fails.

Facts: The assessing officer rejected the claim for exemption from payment of sales tax in respect of the stated sales of imported cigarettes from the stock, as the cigarettes were sold to outgoing vessels from the bonded warehouse within the landmass of the State of West Bengal. The authority found that it was not a sale in the course of import as claimed by the assessees after that before the revisional authority, the only contention pursued was that there was no sale within the State of West Bengal or even in India because the buyer had no right to consume the goods before the ship crossed the territorial Waters of India and the process of import was not complete at the time of sale to the foreign¬going ship and the transaction was a sale in the course of import. Resultantly, the sold goods were not taxable under the concerned West Bengal Sales Tax laws because the goods never entered the local area of the State of West Bengal, crossing the customs frontiers of India

Held: The stated sales or appropriation of goods kept in bonded warehouse within the territory or landmass of the State of West Bengal are neither in the course of import or export and were effected beyond the customs land or ports station area. Therefore, in law, it was a sale amenable to levy of sales tax under the 1954 Act and the 1994 Act, as the case may be, read with Section 4 of the CST Act. As a result, these appeals fails.

Facts: The appellant challenged the change in the Policy ‘Vishesh Krishi Upaj Yojna‘ wherein 100% export units were denied the benefit of exemption on the ground that the policy binds the respondents for a period of five years and that such policy is discriminatory as direct tariff areas were excluded.

Held: The Notification of the Government has taken a policy decision to withdraw the aforesaid benefit as the Export Oriented Units enjoy special status for tax exemptions and permission to source various requirements including the one in agricultural sector, duty free. They also enjoy income tax benefits and have been set up primarily for exports, therefore, they cannot be treated at par with DTA Units which do not enjoy all these benefits. Therefore, the benefit under the said Policy has not been extended to Special Economic Zone Units and Export Oriented Units.

Facts: The sequence of events that led to the stalemate refers to the incidents which happened in 1998 when there imports synthetic woollen rags in the Cochin Port Trust premises. The said containers were destuffed to facilitate Customs examination and to return the empty containers to the Steamer Agents. The destuffed cargo occupied much larger space and was not promptly cleared by the consignees in view of the hurdles placed by the Customs stating that the cargo actually did not constitute old woollen rags as declared, but mostly were brand new clothes which could not have been cleared. The ‘modus operandi’ of the consignees and importers attracted wide attention of all concerned and taking note of the probable extent of liability to be imposed by the Customs Department, and the liability to be satisfied to the Port and others concerned, the consignees did not turn up to clear the goods and they were lying idle in the Port premises for quite long and the Port Trust charged ‘ground rent’ from the Steamer Agents and owners of the containers.

Held: The steamer agents themselves did not dispute liability to pay ground rent upto 75 days before the High Court, and have admittedly paid the said charges long ago. Thus, the High Court ordered the Appellant Port Trust to recompute the liability of the steamer agents, and return the balance to the parties concerned within two months from the date of order and ordered to refund of ground rent paid for 75 days to the steamer agent, and direct the Board to then recover the same from the importer, consignor and/or the owner of the goods.

Facts: The sequence of events that led to the stalemate refers to the incidents which happened in 1998 when there imports synthetic woollen rags in the Cochin Port Trust premises. The said containers were destuffed to facilitate Customs examination and to return the empty containers to the Steamer Agents. The destuffed cargo occupied much larger space and was not promptly cleared by the consignees in view of the hurdles placed by the Customs stating that the cargo actually did not constitute old woollen rags as declared, but mostly were brand new clothes which could not have been cleared. The 'modus operandi' of the consignees and importers attracted wide attention of all concerned and taking note of the probable extent of liability to be imposed by the Customs Department, and the liability to be satisfied to the Port and others concerned, the consignees did not turn up to clear the goods and they were lying idle in the Port premises for quite long and the Port Trust charged 'ground rent' from the Steamer Agents and owners of the containers.

Held: The steamer agents themselves did not dispute liability to pay ground rent upto 75 days before the High Court, and have admittedly paid the said charges long ago. Thus, the High Court ordered the Appellant Port Trust to recompute the liability of the steamer agents, and return the balance to the parties concerned within two months from the date of order and ordered to refund of ground rent paid for 75 days to the steamer agent, and direct the Board to then recover the same from the importer, consignor and/or the owner of the goods.

Facts: The sequence of events that led to the stalemate refers to the incidents which happened in 1998 when there imports synthetic woollen rags in the Cochin Port Trust premises. The said containers were destuffed to facilitate Customs examination and to return the empty containers to the Steamer Agents. The destuffed cargo occupied much larger space and was not promptly cleared by the consignees in view of the hurdles placed by the Customs stating that the cargo actually did not constitute old woollen rags as declared, but mostly were brand new clothes which could not have been cleared. The 'modus operandi' of the consignees and importers attracted wide attention of all concerned and taking note of the probable extent of liability to be imposed by the Customs Department, and the liability to be satisfied to the Port and others concerned, the consignees did not turn up to clear the goods and they were lying idle in the Port premises for quite long and the Port Trust charged 'ground rent' from the Steamer Agents and owners of the containers.

Held: The steamer agents themselves did not dispute liability to pay ground rent upto 75 days before the High Court, and have admittedly paid the said charges long ago. Thus, the High Court ordered the Appellant Port Trust to recompute the liability of the steamer agents, and return the balance to the parties concerned within two months from the date of order and ordered to refund of ground rent paid for 75 days to the steamer agent, and direct the Board to then recover the same from the importer, consignor and/or the owner of the goods.

Facts: The appellant allegedly removed samples of cigarettes for the purpose of testing in the Laboratory without payment of duty and so the appellant submitted before the lower authorities that the samples drawn for testing purposes were duly accounted for and finally destroyed. Therefore, no duty was payable thereon. The lower authorities held that the cigarettes samples drawn for testing purposes were chargeable to duty from and removal of such samples were not reflected in RG-I or in monthly returns submitted in Central Excise Department.and by considering the Basic Manual of Departmental instructions provided the duty of said samples and Board has clarified that Central Excise Duty was chargeable on such samples drawn and in that circular, procedure to observe before destruction of the samples were also laid down which the appellants have not followed. Therefore, the appellants were liable to pay duty on destroyed cigarettes.

Held: The claim for refund cannot be entertained unless the order of assessment or self-assessment is modified in accordance with law by taking recourse to the appropriate proceedings, it would not be within the ken of Section 27 to set aside the order of self-assessment and reassess the duty for making refund and in case any person is aggrieved by any order which would include self-assessment, he has to get the order modified Under Section 128 or under other relevant provisions of the Act and thus the applications for refund are not maintainable.

Facts: The appellant had imported 96 tons of the chemical “Acetic Anhydride” through the Inland Water Container Depot (ICD), Hyderabad under the Advance Licence Scheme in 1993. Two Customs Notifications contained a scheme permitting import without payment of customs duty subject to fulfilment of certain norms and conditions. But these notifications were amended later by which the subject imports became liable for duty, the exemption having been withdrawn. This new amended notification was further amended permitting the import of the chemical without customs duty subject to certain terms and conditions. The clarificatory notification was necessitated to obviate the difficulties faced by the importers like the appellant, who had imported the chemical under the advance licence issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade prior to the amendment. The appellant was allowed to clear the consignments without payment of duty. But later, he was denied any exemption on duty. After making submissions to the Commissioner, The HC denied to issue writ of mandamus for exemption reasoning that the consignments were imported after and before the clarificatory notification hence Respondent had not acted in an arbitrary manner.

Held: The entire consignment was imported under one advance licence issued to the Petitioner prior to 19.05.1992. The fortuitous circumstance that part of the consignment was actually imported prior to 25.11.1993 and the rest subsequent thereto is hardly relevant in view of the clarificatory notification dated 18.03.1994 that the exemption would continue to apply subject to fulfilment of the specified terms and conditions. It is not the case of the Respondents that the consignments imported subsequently did not meet the terms and conditions of the exemption. The High Court further gravely erred in holding that the authorities of the State were also unaware of the clarificatory notification.

Facts: One M/s. Kushang Apparel Ltd. had imported CTV kits and filed six Bills of Entries. Such goods were permitted by the Custom Department to be kept in warehouse for 1 one year. The Bond period expired on 28th February, 2002 but the importer did not clear the imported goods and also did not pay the rent for the warehouse. The warehouse issued notices for the recovery of its dues failing which it will be constrained to sell the imported goods by public auction/tender sale. With the approval of custom authorities, the imported goods were put for sale through auction with a valuation of imported goods. However, the goods could not be successfully sold. The valuation was reduced for the second auction and further reduced in the third auction. The highest bid of Rs.35 lakhs alone was received. The auction was not confirmed. Thereafter, tender sale was resorted to dispose of the goods in the warehouse. Later, the valuation was reduced In this sale process. The Assistant Commissioner passed an order that the goods will not be cleared on ex-bond Bill of Entry as it is not a case of clearance but the sale proceeds will be appropriated as per Section 105 of the Act. After the Additional Commissioner informed the respondent that Chief Commissioner of the Central Excise is of the view that the matter stands settled with the Board’s clarification of 17th February, 2005 and the outstanding arrears of custom duty is required to be recovered. The bank guarantee was sought to be invoked which led the respondent to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.

Held: The customs duty keeping in mind the dispensation indicated in the enabling provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and Chapter 21 of Central Board of Excise and Customs Manual read with circular and adjust the same as per the priority specified in Section 150(2) of the stated Act. Further, if the bank guarantee in the sum which has already been invoked by the appellants, the said amount shall be made over to the respondent.

Facts: One M/s. Kushang Apparel Ltd. had imported CTV kits and filed six Bills of Entries. Such goods were permitted by the Custom Department to be kept in warehouse for 1 one year. The Bond period expired on 28th February, 2002 but the importer did not clear the imported goods and also did not pay the rent for the warehouse. The warehouse issued notices for the recovery of its dues failing which it will be constrained to sell the imported goods by public auction/tender sale. With the approval of custom authorities, the imported goods were put for sale through auction with a valuation of imported goods. However, the goods could not be successfully sold. The valuation was reduced for the second auction and further reduced in the third auction. The highest bid of Rs.35 lakhs alone was received. The auction was not confirmed. Thereafter, tender sale was resorted to dispose of the goods in the warehouse. Later, the valuation was reduced In this sale process. The Assistant Commissioner passed an order that the goods will not be cleared on ex-bond Bill of Entry as it is not a case of clearance but the sale proceeds will be appropriated as per Section 105 of the Act. After the Additional Commissioner informed the respondent that Chief Commissioner of the Central Excise is of the view that the matter stands settled with the Board's clarification of 17th February, 2005 and the outstanding arrears of custom duty is required to be recovered. The bank guarantee was sought to be invoked which led the respondent to invoke the writ jurisdiction of the Delhi High Court.

Held: The customs duty keeping in mind the dispensation indicated in the enabling provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and Chapter 21 of Central Board of Excise and Customs Manual read with circular and adjust the same as per the priority specified in Section 150(2) of the stated Act. Further, if the bank guarantee in the sum which has already been invoked by the appellants, the said amount shall be made over to the respondent.