Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2014 (2) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (2) TMI 491 - HC - CustomsTranshipment of goods - Goods Imported (Conditions of Transhipment) Regulations, 1995 - it was argued that the violation of Sections 33, 34 and 36 of the Customs Act, if any, is not by the petitioners but by the carrier i.e. Indian Airlines - Held that:- . Section 30 as it stood at the relevant time requires the person in charge to deliver to the proper officer such import manifest within 24 hours after arrival of an aircraft at customs station i.e. customs airport. Here, the aircraft arrived at the Nagpur customs airport at 9.30 P.M. on 01.09.1997 and the respondents were informed about arrival of said machine on 02.09.1997 itself. The impugned order, rightly, nowhere alleges violation of Section 30 of the Customs Act, 1962. Merely because on 04.08.1997 Petitioner No. 2 had written to Respondent No. 2 to take necessary steps to enable commencement of full fledged cargo importexport operations from Nagpur customs airport, an inference as drawn in the impugned order cannot be sustained. Even otherwise, on merits also no confiscation could have been ordered under Section 111(d) and (f) of the Customs Act, 1962. Question of scope & field occupied by Section 8(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, left open for appropriate consideration in future - order set aside - revenue to appropriate amount of duty paid by the petitioners towards duty on imported machine. If on that count, they are entitled to charge any interest in accordance with law, they are permitted to claim the same from the petitioners and recover it. The order of confiscation and penalty is also set aside - Decided in favor of assessee.
|