Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2009 (4) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2009 (4) TMI 826 - MADRAS HIGH COURTWhether the Tribunal is right in holding that confiscation of ‘Druid’ under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 is ‘is not’ sustainable on the ground that as per para 4.2.7 of the Foreign Trade Policy goods imported for jobbing in terms of a Notification, do not require a licence, certificate or permission? Held that:- If we employ the meaning of the word “prohibition” as was done in Om Prakash Bhatia case [2003 (7) TMI 74 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] we have to hold that the imported ‘druid’ was ‘prohibited goods’ since the respondent is not an eligible passenger as he did not satisfy the conditions. The impugned order deserves to be set aside. In view of the above decision, the order dated 30-4-2008 consequent to the order of remand also is set aside. Since we are of the opinion that the conclusion of the Tribunal was wrong and the order of remand was also erroneous. The substantial question of law is answered in favour of the Revenue and the confiscation under Section 111(d) must be sustained since the goods are ‘prohibited goods’. The appeal is allowed. The order of remand is set aside. Consequently the order dated 30-4-2008 must be set aside.
|