Case Law

CC vs Ganji Mallaiah

Import of vehicle - Importer to be an owner or title holder of vehicle
The condition mentioned in Public Notice No. 3(RE2000) 1997-2002 dated 31March 2000 that no person would be entitled to sell the vehicle imported while coming to India for permanent settlement after two years continuous stay abroad was pregnant with the condition that such person should be an owner or title holder of the vehicle. The right to sell vehicle after expiry of two years contemplated transfer of title arising from the transaction of sale and purchase. Transfer of title could only be done by a person holding title. Thus, the tribunal’s view that it was not necessary for the importer to prove his ownership or title to the vehicle during his stay abroad and that he need not be the owner of the vehicle for next two years after importation thereof during his stay in India was perverse. The tribunal’s order also suffered from non-application of mind inasmuch as it directed release of vehicle after collection of duty assessed thereon ignoring the fact that as per the Public Notice payment of full duty was a condition precedent and that the duty was duly paid by the importer. The impugned order was, thus, unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

Case Law - Central Excise & Cusotms

Om Prakash Vs UoI 

Offences under the Customs Act and Central Excise Act are Non-Cognizable and bailable; if the person arrested offers bail, he shall be released on bail:

Central Excise Act: the language of the Scheme of Central Excise Act seems to suggest that the main object of the enactment of the said Act was the recovery of excise duties and not really to punish for infringement of its provisions . The introduction of Section 9A into the Central Excise Act by way of amendment reveals the thinking of the legislature that offences under the Act should be non-cognizable and, therefore, bailable. From Part 1 of the First Schedule to the Code, it will be clear that as a general rule all non-cognizable offences are bailable . In view of the provisions of Sections 9 and 9A read with Section 20 of the Central Excise Act, offences under the Central Excise Act, 1944, besides being non-cognizable, are also bailable, though not on the logic that all non-cognizable offences are bailable, but in view of the aforesaid provisions of the Central Excise Act, which indicate that offences under the said Act are bailable in nature.

Customs Act: The provisions of Section 104(3) of the Customs Act, 1962, and Section 13 of the Central Excise Act, 1944, vest Customs Officers and Excise Officers with the same powers as that of a Police Officer in charge of a Police Station, which include the power to release on bail upon arrest in respect of offences committed under the two enactments which are uniformly non-cognizable. Both Section 9A of the Central Excise Act and Section 104(4) of the Customs Act, 1962, provide that notwithstanding anything in the Code of Criminal Procedure, offences under both the Acts would be non-cognizable. Consequently, as in the case of offences under the Central Excise Act, 1944, it is held that offences under Section 135 of the Customs Act, 1962, are bailable and if the person arrested offers bail, he shall be released on bail in accordance with the provisions of sub-Section (3) of Section 104 of the Customs Act, 1962, if not wanted in connection with any other offence.: SUPREME COURT

Indirect Tax

M/s Velpa Technologies Vs CC, Bangalore

Customs – Allegation of mis-classification and mis-declaration of quantity and value of imported ‘retro reflective sheets', ‘window films' – Statements recorded from GPA holder of proprietary firm (importer) under sec. 108 of Customs Act admitted manipulation of invoices in order to evade duty and were retracted only after issue of show cause notice – No material adduced to show that statements were recorded under coercion or threat, statements acceptable as evidence – In instances where inculpatory statements were retracted and corroborative evidence absent, such statements cannot be relied to justify allegation of mis-declaration of description, value, quantity of imported goods

Imports under B/E No. 436656 dt. 3/4/2003 – Chemical examination showed that part of the goods declared as self-adhesive paper were found to be plastic sheets with adhesive on one side, identified as NIKKALITE brand retro reflective sheet, classifiable under Chapter 3920.99 – Valuation of retro reflective sheet to be based on price admitted to have been paid to supplier by GPA Holder since statement was not retracted till filing of reply to show cause notice, which was issued eight months later – Duty liability to be re-quantified – Since mis-declaration of description and value of window films was accepted, in the absence of contemporaneous imports of identical goods, valuation based on statement made by GPA holder justified – Consignments covered by this B/E liable for confiscation under sec. 111(m) for mis-declarations

Imports under B/E No. 320634 – No evidence except retracted admission to show that goods were not adhesive paper but retro reflective sheets – When goods were examined by Customs and declaration accepted for assessment, and there is no reliable evidence that invoice covering this import was fabricated, finding of mis-declaration of description and value of imported goods covered by this B/E not justified, liable to be set aside

Import under B/E No. 394234 – Admission by GPA holder that invoice produced for assessment was fabricated – Valuation based on actual invoice recovered by authorities justified – Demand of differential duty and confiscation upheld

Import under B/E No. 416047 – Allegation of undervaluation of hair dryers and payments to supplier not supported by any reliable evidence – Witness not produced for cross-examination – Findings regarding undervaluation and consequential demand of differential duty and confiscation of goods not justified, liable to be set aside

Import under Airway Bill No. 058 4036 4973 – Confiscation ordered by original authority under sec. 111(f) sustained since under this provision any dutiable or prohibited goods required to be mentioned under the regulations in an import manifest or import report, which are not so mentioned, are liable to confiscation

Demand of duty from importer and imposition of penalty on importer as well as GPA holder upheld – Duty and penalty to be re-quantified by original authority on remand : BANGALORE CESTAT;