Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

icim Ltd. Vs. Commissioner of Customs

icim Ltd. vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Jul 04, 1996
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/9699

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On
Subject
Land Acquisition

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Land Acquisition

Key legal issue
Land Acquisition

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

icim Ltd.

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Legal References

Reported In
(1998)(100)ELT373Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. by the order impugned in the appeal, it has been held that controller cards imported with winchester disc drive fall under appx.2b of the import policy 1985-88 and therefore required a licence for its importation.2. it is claimed in the appeal that the invoice description includes controller cards and that the goods were cleared under concessional rate of duty on the basis of a certificate granted by the department of electronics. in the certificate, the department has treated the winchester disc drive and controller card as a single unit and the value of the controller has been included in the value of the winchester disc drive. in support of its contention the judgment 'of the supreme court in hindustan steel ltd. v. the state of orissa reported in air 1970 sc 253 (sc) is cited.3. we are not able to agree that the department of electronics has certified the import of controller cards, in the absence of material to show that the department of electronics was told by the appellant while applying for the certificate that controller cards would also be imported. mere inclusion of the price by itself would not support the appellant's contention. the judgment cited by the appellant relates to imposition of penalty and is irrelevant to the facts of the present case, where penalty has not been imposed. goods are therefore liable to confiscation. however, taking into account the fact that the appellant was an actual user, we reduce the fine from rs. 43,000/- to rs. 22,000/- (rupees twenty two thousand only).

Full Judgment

1. By the order impugned in the appeal, it has been held that controller cards imported with Winchester Disc Drive fall under Appx.

2B of the Import Policy 1985-88 and therefore required a licence for its importation.

2. It is claimed in the appeal that the invoice description includes controller cards and that the goods were cleared under concessional rate of duty on the basis of a certificate granted by the Department of Electronics. In the certificate, the department has treated the Winchester Disc Drive and Controller Card as a single unit and the value of the Controller has been included in the value of the Winchester Disc Drive. In support of its contention the judgment 'of the Supreme Court in Hindustan Steel Ltd. v. The State of Orissa reported in AIR 1970 SC 253 (SC) is cited.

3. We are not able to agree that the Department of Electronics has certified the import of controller cards, in the absence of material to show that the Department of Electronics was told by the appellant while applying for the certificate that controller cards would also be imported. Mere inclusion of the price by itself would not support the appellant's contention. The judgment cited by the appellant relates to imposition of penalty and is irrelevant to the facts of the present case, where penalty has not been imposed. Goods are therefore liable to confiscation. However, taking into account the fact that the appellant was an actual user, we reduce the fine from Rs. 43,000/- to Rs. 22,000/- (Rupees Twenty two thousand only).

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial