Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (3) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (3) TMI 127 - CESTAT AHMEDABADConfiscation of containers - empty containers were retained by the appellant and not returned back to the supplier - case of the department is that since the containers were not returned back and retained by the appellant, its value should have been declared to the Customs in the bills of entry but the same was suppressed - Held that:- The shipping bill and invoice clearly bear the description of the goods duly packed in the container - From the description given in the above invoice, it can be seen that the fact regarding import of plate mill duly packed in container were correctly declared by the overseas supplier in the documents. From the certificate given by the supplier also, it is clear that the supply of Hi Reversing Plate Mill complete in all respect are duly packed in the containers and the value of the machine is inclusive of cost of containers. In this position, there is no basis to allege that either the appellant has not declared or mis-declared the description of the goods or suppressed the value of the containers. The ratio of Hon'ble Supreme Court. Judgment in the case of Union of India vs. Jain Shudh Vanaspati [1991 (11) TMI 78 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA] wherein it was held that Edible Oil imported in stainless steel containers, separate duty not leviable on such containers and such containers are not liable to confiscation. As per the facts, which are undisputed, the entire deal between the supplier and the appellant was to import the machine under EPCG scheme duly packed in the container. Therefore, it is not a case of mis-declaration or suppression of any value - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|