Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 497 - AT - CustomsRevocation of CHA License - forfeiture of security deposit - Import of restricted item or not - import of assorted birthday candles - on examination, the goods appeared to be classifiable under Chapter heading 3604 “fireworks, signalling flares, rain rockets, fog signals and other pyro-technic articles” - violation of Regulation 11(d) and (e) of CBLR, 2013. Whether the imported goods i.e. assorted birthday candles can actually be classified as fireworks/pyrotechnics? - HELD THAT:- The impugned goods are assorted candles makes it clear that the impugned goods neither can be called as firework nor are the pyrotechnic substance. The reports have admission that goods in question are candles. However, the Central wig of the candles contains such chemicals as are the contents of fireworks. Thus, the goods are such that a small part thereof contains such chemical as are required to manufacture fireworks. If similarity of contents is the criteria to classify than even match stick should be classified as firework, in the given circumstances and in view of the principle of common parlance/ in terms of trade we hold that goods are not fireworks - Admittedly the essential use of impugned goods is as that of birthday candles. The introduction of Nitrogen, Potassium, Calcium, etc. is intended to just add on the sparkle to that candle and to add on a musical feature to the candles. The object is neither fireworks show for entertainment nor to have the explosions/bursts nor even to use the sparkle as fog lamp or signalling apparatus as are the characteristics of fireworks as per Head note of CTH 3604. This further corroborates our opinion that the impugned good cannot be classified under Chapter 36 CTH 3604 i.e. “fireworks, signalling, flares, rain rockets, fog signals and other pyrotechnic articles.” Rather these fall under Chapter 34 CTH 3406 “candles, tapers and the like.” Thus, G-Card Holder, Shri Kuber Nath Rai had a bonafide belief for the impugned goods to be assorted birthday candles simplicitor as the earlier two consignments had also been cleared rather on the basis of the reports of the Customs officers acknowledging the goods to be assorted birthday candles only. Above all, the present appellant admittedly has no concern with the interecepted consignment - No doubt, CHA is a link between the Customs Authorities and the importers and the CBLR Regulations imposes obligation upon them which have to be taken as mandatory but law is also settled that not any and every infraction of the CHA Regulations either Regulation 13 or elsewhere leads to the revocation of license rather in line with a proportionality analysis and only grave and serious violation justify revocation. Here no reason appears for the cancellation of appellant’s CHA license - The penalty is also opined to be far beyond the proportion. Hence, same is also held liable to be set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|