Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2018 (3) TMI AT This

  • Login
  • Cases Cited
  • Referred In
  • Summary

Forgot password       New User/ Regiser

⇒ Register to get Live Demo



 

2018 (3) TMI 1393 - AT - Customs


Issues:
Classification of imported goods under CTH 35030020, duty exemption under Advance Authorization Scheme, compliance with Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 & CITES, confiscation, penalty, appeal against order of confiscation and penalty, applicability of Section 111, compliance with biological criteria, negligence in importing goods, comparison with legal precedent.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification and Duty Exemption: The appellant imported Pharmaceutical Gelatin Capsule Grade, classified under CTH 35030020, seeking duty exemption under the Advance Authorization Scheme. The goods were found to be subject to the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 & CITES regulations, requiring permission for import. The total assessable value and duty foregone were specified in the bill of entry.

2. Confiscation and Penalty: The impugned goods did not comply with the biological criteria upon testing, leading to confiscation and imposition of redemption fine and penalty by the Adjudicating Authority. The appellant contested the confiscation, arguing no mis-declaration occurred, and the non-compliance with two parameters was due to sensitive biological tests and potential sample contamination during handling and testing delays.

3. Appeal and Legal Precedent: The appellant appealed to the Commissioner (Appeals), contending that Section 111 applies only in specific circumstances, none of which were present in their case. They emphasized the absence of mala-fide intent, timely dispatch from the country of origin, and the offer by the exporter to take back the goods. The Revenue, however, supported the confiscation and penalty, citing negligence in importing goods of inferior quality and referencing a Supreme Court ruling on penalty and confiscation under the Customs Act.

4. Judgment and Conclusion: After considering the arguments, the Judge found that the appellant did not import prohibited or restricted goods but faced irregularity in biological criteria compliance due to testing delays and potential sample contamination. The lack of mala-fide intent was highlighted, supported by a certificate of analysis from the load port. Consequently, the order of confiscation and penalty was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with consequential relief to the appellant, emphasizing compliance with standards and permissions under relevant regulations.

This detailed analysis covers the classification, compliance, confiscation, penalty, appeal, and legal precedent aspects of the judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the issues addressed and the final decision rendered by the Appellate Tribunal.

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates