|
|
Database updates
Judgments
(1) Indo International Limited, Represented By Its Director, Umraomal Lodha, Chennai; (2) Rave Global Limited, Represented By Its Director, Rajesh Lodha, Chennai; (3) Ram Abatar Jain; (4) Umraomal Lodha; (5) Ashu Lodha vs (1) Assistant Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Chennai; (2) Special Director, Directorate of Enforcement, Government of India, New Delhi; (3) Registrar, Appellate Tribunal For Foreign Exchange Ministry of Law, Justice and Company Affairs, Government of India, New Delhi
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 17 Apr 2008]
Foreign Exchange Management Act, 1999 - Whether the court is supposed to refer each and every ground and document, if not specifically raised by counsel for the party nor relies upon at the time of hearing of the case? - Held, if different grounds are raised in a case and large number of documents are filed along with the petition, at the time of hearing if the counsel for such party do not raise such a ground or do not rely on one or other documents, the Court is not obliged to look into each and every ground mentioned in the petition and to each and every document to give a finding on such ground and documents, though not argued at the time of hearing - Petitions dismissed.
|
(1) Aban Loyd Chiles Offshore Limited and Another; (2) Jindal Drilling and Industries Limited and Another; (3) Great Offshore Limited and Another vs Union of India and Others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 11 Apr 2008]
Customs Act, 1962 - Whether oil rigs engaged in operations in the exclusive economic zone/ continental shelf of India, falling outside the territorial waters of India, are 'foreign going vessels' as defined by s. 2(21) and are entitled to consume imported stores thereon without payment of customs duty in terms of s. 87? - Held, as the goods were being taken to a territory which would be deemed to be a part of the territory of India though the goods have left the territorial waters, the same would be exigible to levy of duty when they are taken and consumed within the deemed territory of India - There would be no customs duty or any other duty levied while the goods are in transit to the deemed territory of India by any other country although they have gone out of the territorial waters of India - Appeal dismissed.
|
Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vs J.D. Orgochem Limited
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 10 Apr 2008]
Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 - Appeal to challenge order holding that since respondent was the only importer of the goods, they were 'the best person to obtain conclusive proof of downward pricing pattern in the international market' - Deputy Commissioner of Customs had opined that transactional value at US$ 13.2 per kg declared by the importer should be rejected and Rule 5 of the GATT Valuation Rules, 1988 should be applied ordering to load the value to US$ 18.7 per kg for goods falling under Heading 2914.69 and 2914.00 of the Customs Tariff Act, 1975 and Central Excise Tariff, 1944 respectively and for which respondent had earlier imported the same goods from the same supplier @ US$ 18.7 per kg - Issue to decide that extent of jurisdiction of the assessing officer to discard the transactional value disclosed by the importer - Held, there should be an "extra ordinary" or "special" situation so as to enable the competent authority to opine that the transactional value declared by the importer should be disbelieved; Customs Authorities are not bound by such declaration, it, however, has to rely on contemporaneous evidence to show that the invoice does not reflect the correct value - Appeal dismissed.
|
New Okhla Industrial Development Authority and Another vs Arvind Sonekar
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 10 Apr 2008]
Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Act, 1969 - Appeal to challenge order directing appellants to refund to respondent the excess amount charged from him for allotment of a plot - Appellant having not received allotment money from respondent refunded the registration amount to respondent by cheque which got encashed and again in 1996 fresh application for allotment was issued to respondent which specifically made clear that the allotment rate would be Rs.3600/- per sq. mtr.- Held, respondent, having accepted the refunded money without raising any objection could not turn around and say that the offer letter of 1993 was an allotment letter and therefore, it was a concluded contract between the parties- Offer letter would not show that it was an allotment letter; by this letter, a plot of land was only offered to the respondent and there is nothing on record to show that the said offer letter had culminated into an allotment letter - After accepting the rate of the land at Rs. 3600/- per sq. mtr. and executing the lease deed at the accepted rate and after having already paid in terms of the offer letter, it is not open to the respondent now to allege that in view of the earlier concluded contract, he was liable to pay @ Rs.2750/- per sq. mtr. in respect of the plot in question - Doctrine of legitimate expectation, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, cannot at all be applicable - Appeal allowed.
|
Shaw Wallace and Company Limited vs M.P. Beer Products Private Limited
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 09 Apr 2008]
Application filed under O. 7, r. 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint on the ground that Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed for injunction and damages for infringement of trade mark, copyright and passing off - Suit filed for decree of permanent injunction against the defendant from using the trade mark '5000' or 'PRESIDENT 5000' which was deceptively similar to the plaintiff's trade mark 'HAYWARDS 5000 SUPER STRONG BEER' in respect of its goods - Registered office of plaintiff company was at Calcutta and business office at Mumbai and plaintiff submitted that since the goods of the plaintiff were sold and offered for sale at various outlets at Delhi, this Court had jurisdiction but no where in plain averred that it was carrying on business in Delhi - Held, only if the goods of a company are sold at a place would not mean that company carries own the business at that place - By giving an address within the jurisdiction of this Court without specifying as to what the address was about, does not entitle a company to file the suit within the jurisdiction of this Court - Plaintiff company is having registered office at Calcutta and the other office at Mumbai, and the defendant is situated in Madhya Pradesh, no reason why the jurisdiction has been invoked of Delhi High Court when no cause of action arose in Delhi - When a Court had no jurisdiction at all in the matter, by consent the parties cannot confer jurisdiction - Delhi High Court has no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the suit - Application dismissed.
|
(1) Ajay Gulati, Delhi; (2) Jatin Kapoor, New Delhi vs (1) Union of India Through Secretary Ministry of Finance Department of Revenue New Delhi; (2) Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi; (3) Kapil Rai, New Delhi
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 03 Apr 2008]
Customs Act, 1962 - Petitions to challenge criminal prosecution initiated u/s. 135(1)(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 on same charges on which Joint Secretary (Revisionary Authority) Government of India, gave a categorical finding of facts that petitioners had not contravened any provision of Customs Act and the same were in consonance of the provision of the Customs Act and had thereby absolved them of their liability towards the personal penalties imposed on them by the lower authorities - Held, when the highest Appellate Authority has also absolved these petitioners on merits, no useful purpose will served by continuing the criminal proceedings on the same set of allegations - Petitions allowed.
|
Gurcharan Singh vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 01 Apr 2008]
Code of Criminal procedure, s. 482; Customs Act, 1962, ss. 132, 135 - Illegal claim of drawback - Application for discharge dismissed - Appeal against - Held, it is difficult to accept the submissions of appellant that prohibition must have a nexus with the payment of duty and in the event some goods are imported which are prohibited goods vis-a-vis payment of duty, then and then only the rigours of Section 135 would be attracted - As the allegations made in the complaint prima facie discloses an offence under s. 135, High Court, has correctly refused to quash the proceeding - Appeal dismissed.
|
Tata Chemicals Limited vs Union of India and Others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 24 Mar 2008]
Customs Tariff (Identification, Assessment and Collection of Anti-Dumping Duty on dumped articles and for determination of injury) Rules, 1995 - Anti-dumping - Held, distinctive feature was challenge to the Customs Notification dated 27th October, 1998 - This aspect was not apparently noted by the two-Judge Bench - Order dated 24.8.2000 that determination as contemplated by r. 18 has taken place with the issuance of the Notification dated 27th October, 1998 and, therefore, the appeal could be maintainable to CEGAT - Appeals before CEGAT were clearly maintainable when challenge was to the determination made is clear from the issuance of the Notification dated 27th October, 1998 - Order accordingly.
|
Anirudh Singh Katoch vs Union of India and Others
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 20 Mar 2008]
Arms Act, 1959 - Baggage Rules, 1998 - r. 8 - Customs Act, 1962 - Appeal to challenge order dismissing writ petition filed to seek quashing of detention order and release of firearms but permitted appellant to take back detained firearms and if appellant exercised such an option, the said firearms would be released to him as and when he chose to go abroad with the condition that he would not be permitted to bring the same into India - Whether non-resident Indian on transfer of his residence to India can be permitted to bring more than one firearm under provisions of the Arms Act or the Rules framed thereunder or the existing Baggage Rules? - Held, person on transferring his residence to India is allowed in his baggage used personal and household articles to the extent mentioned in Column 1 of Appendix 'F', other than those listed in Annexure-1 or Annexure-2, which means, that the person is not eligible to import the goods listed in Annexure-1 or Annexure-2 to Appendix 'F' - Only upto one firearm can be cleared on production of a valid license under the Arms Act and on payment of the appropriate duty on the said firearm, in view of exclusion of firearms under Rule 8 read with Appendix 'F' of the Baggage Rules and para 2 of the notification No.137/90 Cus. dated 20th March, 1990; release of this one firearm is by virtue of the exercise of powers by the Central Government, as vested in the Central Government under Section 11 of the Arms Act, and the Central Government having by circular No.63/95-Cus. permitted the release of one firearm under the 'Transfer of Residence Form Revision' to the person concerned - Appeal dismissed.
|
Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam vs Hygrdse Pellets Limited
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 13 Mar 2008]
Customs - Barge hire charges - Valuation - Held, barge hire charges were incurred by the Respondent-herein for unloading from Mother Vessel on to the barge after the customs barrier stood crossed and, therefore, the barge hire charges, were not includible in the assessable value of the imported goods - Appeal dismissed.
|
Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai vs M.M.K. Jewellers and Another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 11 Mar 2008]
Customs Act, 1962 - Non- accounting of gold or the wastage - Demand of duty - Held, appellant cannot invoke the extended period of limitation in view of the Commissioner's categoric findings that no case of collusion, wilful misstatement or suppression of facts has been brought out in the show cause notice so as to invoke the provisions of s. 114A - Penalty under s. 114A is imposable only when the demand is confirmed under the proviso to s. 28(1) - Duty cannot be imposed by invoking the extended period of limitation - When the duty itself cannot be imposed, no order of imposing the penalty under s. 114A can be sustained - Appeal disposed of.
|
(1) Lohia Sheet Products; (2) Lohia Brass Private Limited vs Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 05 Mar 2008]
Customs Act, 1962, s. 130-E - Benefit of the exemption notification no.8/96- CE - Whether the scrap imported by appellants is chargeable to 'NIL' rate of additional customs duty under s. 3 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975? - Held, it is a matter of fact that duty was paid by the appellant at the time of import of waste or scrap - Mere fact that the goods were imported would not make any difference - Intention behind grant of exemption under the notification was to prevent the duty being paid at two stages - Appellants would be entitled to the benefit of the exemption - Appeals allowed.
|
Marc Enterprises Private Limited vs Five Star Electricals(India) and Another
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 04 Mar 2008]
Trademark Act, 1999 - Suit filed u/ss. 134 and 135 of Trademark Act, 1999 as well as u/s. 51 of Copyrights Act, 1957 to seek permanent injunction against defendant alleging therein that defendant was infringing the trademark and logo of plaintiff viz 'Marc' - Plaintiff pleaded that it was registered proprietor of trademark in Class '9', and defendant was also a registered proprietor of same trademark for Class '9', but since plaintiff's trademark was registered earlier in time, defendant should be restrained from manufacturing the goods - Held, if plaintiff had been manufacturing the same items as were being manufactured by defendant, plaintiff would have a case, however, plaintiff is not manufacturing the goods which were being manufactured by defendant; even if the plaintiff has got the trademark registered for a class of items, the plaintiff was not using this trademark for the goods which were being manufactured by the defendant and the defendant, therefore, cannot be restrained from being using the trademark 'Marc' for the goods manufactured by it - Plaintiff has failed to show that it has a prima facie case that the defendant was copying its trademark and logo; style and logo of circle with 'M' was not at all there in the literature of defendant and trademark 'MARC' was also written in different style and manner; defendant was neither marketing nor manufacturing the goods being marketed/manufactured by the plaintiff; defendant was registered proprietor of the trademark 'MARC' for the goods being manufactured by it; word 'MARC' was not a coined word or invention of the plaintiff - Applications dismissed.
|
Rexnord Electronics and Controls Limited vs Union of India and Others
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 04 Mar 2008]
Customs Act, 1962, ss. 127A r/w 127H - Whether the term "interest" used therein would include within its fold interest payable under the bond furnished by the appellant before the Director General of Foreign Trade? - held, if any interest became payable under the Act, indisputably the Settlement Commission, will have the requisite jurisdiction to grant immunity in respect thereof either wholly or in part - All penalties, fine and interest, it goes without saying, must, however, be enforceable under the Act - Interest payable under the bond is not an interest payable under the Act - Power of the Settlement Commission is relatable to waiver of partial or full amount of interest only under the Act - Appeal dismissed.
|
(1) Sabarikrishna International, Represented By Its Proprietor, Ramanan Nair; (2) Unicorp International Limited, Represented By Its Authorised Signatory, Gireesh Nair vs (1) A.M.Cashews, Represented By Its Managing Partner, P.Antony; (2) P.Anthony; (3) Maria Rosily; (4) Jayakumar; (5) Vimal Kumar
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 28 Feb 2008]
Appeal to challenge order vacating interim injunction whereby respondents were directed to release goods detained by respondents relating to non-payment of charges demanded by respondents - Whether appellants are entitled to any interim order by way of getting release of goods from custody of respondents? - Held, goods if allowed to be idle, certainly appellants would not be able to honour their commitment to proposed purchaser of those goods and that goods also would get deteriorated, similarly if goods are released, without any hold, by respondents, then they will be left high and dry and chance of their recovering dues would be nightmare for them - By way of striking a balance between rival contentions, court orders that appellants should take steps to see that their proposed seller deposits sale consideration which by no stretch of imagination could be less than respondents' claim, relating to goods in the custody of respondents in a nationalised Bank and appellants could pay to respondents at first instance sum of Rs.14, 00, 000/- without prejudice to adjust the same towards alleged claim of respondents - Appeal disposed of.
|
Meenakshi Sathish vs (1) Southern Petrochemical Industries Corporation Limited, Represented By Its Regional Manager, L.Krishnakumar, Coimbatore; (2) Agtec Marketing Service, Represented By Its Managing Partner, Lalitha S.Menon, Panthanam, Thitta; (3) Usha Chandrakumar
[MADRAS HIGH COURT, 22 Feb 2008]
The Order of the Court was as follows :1. The petitioner ranked as fourth accused in three cases under section 138 read with section 142 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881n037.xml in C.C.Nos.504, 461 and 679 of 2004 moves these respective
|
Kirti Sujit Satam vs (1) State of Maharashtra, Through Additional Chief Secretary To The Government of Maharashtra, Home Department (Special), Mumbai; (2) Neela Satyanarayana, Principal Secretary Government of Maharashtra, Mumbai; (3) Superintendent of Prison, Mumbai Central Prison, Mumbai; (4) Superintendent of Prison, Maharashtra
[BOMBAY HIGH COURT, 22 Feb 2008]
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act - Petition by the wife of the detenu - Held, if the Detaining Authority had stated that she was already aware of the facts and also of the grounds of detention drafted by her and she had found further generated documents to be relevant for the purposes of the grounds already framed but she undertook to say that she considered all the documents including further generated documents, which, was not possible within a short period within which the whole process was completed - Quashed the order of detention - Order accordingly.
|
Messrs Wep Peripherals Limited vs Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 21 Feb 2008]
Customs - Whether adjudicating authority was entitled to load the royalty/licence fee payment on to the price of the imported goods, viz, the shuttle(s) by taking its peak price? - Held, only ground on which the adjudicating authority has held against the appellant is that the shuttle is an integral part of the printer - This view has been accepted also by the Tribunal, erroneously - Tribunal also failed to consider that the appellant had received a bulk order for which it gave a price discount - In the light of the law discussed in M/s Ferodo India Pvt Ltd (Civil Appeal No8426/02) set aside the impugned judgment of the Tribunal as erroneous - Appeal allowed.
|
Commissioner of Customs vs Messrs Ferodo India Private Limited
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 21 Feb 2008]
Customs Act, 1962; Customs Valuation (Determination of Price of Imported Goods) Rules, 1988 - Respondent is the manufacturer of brake liners and brake pads in India - Trade mark agreement entered into between respondent (buyer/licensee) and foreign collaborator/licensor - Tribunal held that the now-how fees and the royalty payments stood related to the brake liners and brake pads to be produced in India and not to the imported goods - Appeal against - Held, royalties and licence fees related to the imported goods is the cost which is incurred by the buyer in addition to the price which the buyer has to pay as consideration for the purchase of the imported goods - R. 9(1)(c) stipulates that payments made towards technical know-how must be a condition pre-requisite for the supply of imported goods by the foreign supplier and if such condition exists then such royalties and fees have to be included in the price of the imported goods - Adjudicating authority had not examined the pricing arrangement between the foreign collaborator and the buyer - No effort was made by the Department to ascertain enhancement of royalty/licence fees by reducing the price of the imported items - No infirmity in the impugned judgment of the Tribunal - Appeals dismissed.
|
Principal Secretary To Government of Andhra Pradesh and Another vs N.Fairoz Khan and Another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 19 Feb 2008]
Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act, 1974, s. 3(1) - High Court held that since the passport of the detenu had been seized by the detaining authority, it is unlikely that the detenu could carry on with the smuggling activities - Appeal against - Held, relying on Rajesh Gulati v. Government of NCT of Delhi & Another, reported in (2002) 7 SCC 129 a case for interference is not made out - Appeal dismissed,
|
Arun Kumar Gupta vs Directorate of Revenue Intelligence, New Delhi
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 18 Feb 2008]
Customs Act, 1962 - Petition to seek anticipatory bail - Petitioner alleged to have committed offence u/s. 135(1) of the Act - Petitioner contended that case pertained to 2003 and therefore arrest in 2008 was unwarranted, DRI, Delhi had no jurisdiction since matter related to Mumbai and no cause of action had arisen in Delhi for DRI, Delhi to have jurisdiction - Held, there is no question of any custodial interrogation since in case of detention, petitioner has to be sent to judicial remand; Custom Authorities unlike police authorities cannot take petitioner into custody for custodial interrogation - Offences u/s. 135(1) are not bailable - Delhi Office has All-India jurisdiction and since they are investigating into larger scam, Delhi Office cannot be said to have no jurisdiction to investigate into the matter - Petition allowed.
|
Union of India and Others vs Shakti Lpg Limited and Another
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 18 Feb 2008]
Customs Act, 1962 - Petition for a direction to re-export the goods - Petition was disposed of by accepting the undertaking of the respondent to re-export the goods by 14th September 2006 without calling upon the respondent to pay any duty - Special Leave Petition against - Held, respondent having surrendered its title in the goods vide letter dated 31st December 2004 it was not open to it to contend that this surrender had been withdrawn subsequently - Respondents' plea for re- export had been rejected upto the Supreme Court on 3rd February 2006 - Appeals allowed.
|
Prakash Chand Yadav vs Enforcement Directorate
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 13 Feb 2008]
Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1973 - Petition u/s. 482 Cr.P.C. to challenge order taking cognizance of offence u/s. 40 of the Act and order framing charge against petitioner for offence u/s. 40 of the Act - Petitioner submitted that mandatory requirement of r. 3(b) of FERA was not complied with, notice was not sent by registered post with acknowledgment due and proceedings having not been concluded for over eleven years, complaint needed to be quashed - Envelope containing summons which was sent by speed post was returned with report 'accused has gone out of Patna' - Held, dispatch of summons by speed post is in fact dispatch by registered post; procedure that is followed by Postal Department while dispatching letters by speed post is in fact no different from what is followed by it while dispatching letters and parcels by registered post - Even if letter had therefore been sent with acknowledgment due card, remarks would have been no different - requirement of sending summons by registered post to last known address of Petitioner should be held to have been satisfied if summons is sent by speed post, failure to send it with an acknowledgment due card would make no difference since in any event the petitioner was not found at Patna and the speed post cover was returned unserved - Delay in disposal of the case cannot be attributed to any of parties to this litigation but to judicial process itself, it would not be in interests of justice to quash the criminal case only on this ground - Petition dismissed.
|
Lakshman C.Saha vs Special Director of Enforcement and Others
[DELHI HIGH COURT, 12 Feb 2008]
The Judgment was delivered by : HON'BLE JUSTICE DR. MUKUNDAKAM SHARMA (CJ)1. This appeal is directed against the order dated 13th September, 2005 passed by the learned Single Judge whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on the
|
P. Sankaran vs Assistant Collector of Central Excise
[SUPREME COURT OF INDIA, 12 Feb 2008]
Customs Act, 1962, s. 135(1)(b)(i); Gold Control Act, s. 71 - High Court recorder conviction - Whether the order of sanction passed by the Collector of Customs was a valid order? - Held, High Court in its impugned judgment does not deal with the question of grant of a valid order of sanction at all - As Sessions Judge recorded a judgment of acquittal, the High Court while reversing the same was required to meet the reasonings given by Sessions Judge - Appeal allowed.
|
|