Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + HC Customs - 2019 (8) TMI HC This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1041 - HC - CustomsCompliance of obligation u/s 34 and 35 of the Customs Act - Dutiable or exempt goods - interpretation of statute - scope of ‘NIL’ rate of ‘Duty’ - whether the goods leviable at ‘NIL’ rate of ‘Duty’ also comes under the category of dutiable goods? - Confiscation of goods - imposition of penalty. Whether, goods leviable at ‘NIL’ rate of duty comes within the definition of “Dutiable goods” under Section 2 (14) of the Customs Act, 1962? - HELD THAT:- Any goods can be called “Dutiable goods” under Section 2 (14) of the Customs Act only when it is chargeable to duty and on which duty has not been paid and ‘NIL’ rate of ‘Duty’ does not come under the category of “Dutiable goods”. In the instant case imported goods i.e. Yellow Peas in question were exempted from ‘Duty’ and not chargeable - decided in favor of respondent importer. Whether goods not chargeable to duty gets immunity from compliance of the statutory obligation under Section 34 and 35 of the Customs Act, 1962 and from penal action in consequences thereof under Section 111 and 112 of the said Act? - HELD THAT:- Importing non dutiable goods does not give an importer a licence to violate or flout laws under the Customs Act or grant automatic exemption from complying statutory obligation under Section 34 & 35 or any other provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 and penal consequence in violation thereof. The action of condonation by the tribunal of the aforesaid violations by the importer by holding that it was procedural violation and secondly that imported goods in question were not “chargeable to Duty” and hence no contravention of Section 111 (h) of the said Act is not sustainable in law since the language of Section 34 of the Act is “Imported goods shall not be loaded..” and in Section 35 of the Act is “No imported goods shall be..” The legislator has not used the expression specifically “Dutiable goods” or “Duty exempted goods”. The view of the Tribunal that if no ‘Duty’ is chargeable or exempted from ‘Duty’ confiscation and penalty would not be justified is wholly incorrect and not legally sustainable in view of the facts and circumstances involve in this case. There was clear violation of Section 34 & 35 of the Customs Act and penal action under Section 111 and 112 of the Act is justified and the importer cannot take advantage of quoting wrongly Section 111 (h) of the Act by the adjudicating authority and escape penalty in the above admitted factual position. Appeal disposed off.
|