Search Results Page

Search Results

1 - 10 of 20 (0.63 seconds)
Vasavi Gold And Bullion Pvt Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs-Cc Air Cargo Ch ... on 16 January, 2026 cites

Commnr. Of Customs (Import), Mumbai vs M/S. Dilip Kumar And Company on 30 July, 2018

8. We find that the goods in question are jewellery made of gold, the import of which has been a subject of special treatment both under the Customs Act and the Foreign Trade Policy. While in the normal case discharge of the burden of proof as regards the allegations made in the SCN vests with the department, in the case of availing an exemption notification, the burden shifts to the importer as per the Hon'ble Supreme Court's judgment in Dilip Kumar and Co. (supra). Further as pointed out by revenue the fact that Section 123 of the CA, 1962 reverses the standard burden of proof, on the person, in the case of gold, makes this burden even more strict. Further the department has also submitted that when sufficient evidence is adduced the onus of proof shifts to the importer and adverse inference could be drawn against them if they fail to substantiate their case.
Supreme Court of India Cites 39 - Cited by 2183 - N V Ramana - Full Document

Trafigura India Private Limited vs Union Of India on 5 May, 2023

C. The goods are exempt subject to the condition that the importer proves to the satisfaction of the proper officer that the goods are of Thailand Origin in accordance with the provisions of Rules of Origin in terms of Notification No. 101/2004 dated 31.08.2004. D. The imported goods do not meet the origin criteria of Local Value addition of not less than 20%. LVAC in COO has been shown as 22%. However, investigation concludes that the same is not correct and 9 relies upon invoices, statements and other documents for the same. The value addition is only 4-5% and same has been admitted by importer also. As per the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in. Trafigura India Private Limited Vs Union Of India [2023 [2023- TIOL-737-HC-AHM-CUS], where the details for arriving at RVC was misleading and there was suppression of due and correct facts, the importer became disentitled to the concessional rate of duty and preferential treatment under the notification and become liable to pay basic customs duty on the goods imported.
Gujarat High Court Cites 55 - Cited by 0 - N V Anjaria - Full Document
1   2 Next