Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 9 of 9 (0.29 seconds)Section 28AA in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 28AB in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Section 111 in The Customs Act, 1962 [Entire Act]
Titan Medical Systems Pvt. Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 12 November, 2002
"7.1. We agree with the submission of the Appellant
that determination of fulfilment of export obligation
falls within the jurisdiction of the DGFT. Once the
DGFT accepts the fulfilment of export obligation and
the bond has been released, the Customs authorities
cannot initiate any proceedings for contravention of
the provisions of the Foreign Trade Policy. We
observe that this view has been held by the Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the case of M/s. Titan Medical
Systems Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi
[2003 (151) E.L.T. 254 (S.C.)]wherein it has been
held as under:-
Commissioner Of Customs (G), Mumbai vs Akm Trading Corporation on 30 July, 2010
• Commissioner of Customs (Gen.), Mumbai v.
AKM Trading Corporation [2007 (208) ELT
406 (Tri-Mumbai)] Commissioner of Customs
(Gen.), Mumbai Vs AKM Trading Corporation
• Skipper Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs
(port), Kolkata [2025 SCC Online Cestat 94]
• Ashok Enterprises vs commissioner of
Customs Chennai [2005 (179) ELT 124 (Tri-
Commissioner Of Customs (Gen.) vs Akm Trading Corporation on 12 September, 2006
• Commissioner of Customs (Gen.), Mumbai v.
AKM Trading Corporation [2007 (208) ELT
406 (Tri-Mumbai)] Commissioner of Customs
(Gen.), Mumbai Vs AKM Trading Corporation
• Skipper Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs
(port), Kolkata [2025 SCC Online Cestat 94]
• Ashok Enterprises vs commissioner of
Customs Chennai [2005 (179) ELT 124 (Tri-
Aditya Birla Nuo Ltd vs Commissioner Of Customs And Service Tax ... on 10 February, 2014
7.2. We also find that once the Appellant has
fulfilled their export obligation and EODC has been
issued by the DGFT authorities and bond released, it
amounts to fulfilment of all the conditions laid down
under the Notification No. 96/2009-Cus. dated
11.06.2009 under which the Appellant has imported
the goods without payment of duty. This view has
also been supported by the decision in the case of
M/s. Aditya Birla Nuvo Ltd. v. Commissioner of Cus.,
Bangalore [2010 (249) E.L.T. 273 (Tri. - Bang.)].
The relevant part of the said decision is reproduced
below: -
M/S Skipper Beverages Ltd. & Ors vs Cce, Rohtak on 31 July, 2008
• Commissioner of Customs (Gen.), Mumbai v.
AKM Trading Corporation [2007 (208) ELT
406 (Tri-Mumbai)] Commissioner of Customs
(Gen.), Mumbai Vs AKM Trading Corporation
• Skipper Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs
(port), Kolkata [2025 SCC Online Cestat 94]
• Ashok Enterprises vs commissioner of
Customs Chennai [2005 (179) ELT 124 (Tri-
1