Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (10) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 1159 - CESTAT BANGALOREProhibited goods or not? - import of two models of feature phones, ‘m280’ and ‘m380’, batteries, chargers (power adapters) and other mobile accessories - Confiscation on the grounds that the mobile phones imported have been manufactured by a manufacturer other than the one authorized by BIS; and the BIS registration will not apply to the mobile phones imported and the import of mobile phones is without valid BIS registration for their batteries - redemption fine - penalty. HELD THAT:- The goods have been confiscated by the Customs under Section 111(d) on the ground that the goods which are prohibited are attempted to be imported, perusal of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act 1962 shows that the said Section is applicable only if the goods which are imported or attempted to be imported or are brought within Indian Customs Water contrary to any prohibition imposed by this Act or any other law for the time being enforce whereas the Customs in the present case has failed to bring anything on record to show that the mobile phones are prohibited for import - Further, the main ground for confiscating the goods are that the address of the manufacture in the BIS Certificate and in the Bill of Entry are not matched. The manufacturing unit in Shenzhen, China has authorized all its customers to effect all banking transactions pertaining to the company to Hong Kong as part of usual business practice followed by all traders in India while importing articles from China. The finding of both the authorities that the names of both companies are different is not tenable in law and both the authorities have not properly examined all the documents produced before them. Further, the appellant has produced the documents pertaining to earlier import by them of the mobile phones and no such objection was raised earlier by the Customs authorities. The respondent has failed to appreciate the business practice followed by all Indian traders while importing articles from China and has unnecessarily detained the goods of the appellant company without any reason. The imposition of penalty on the appellant to the tune of ₹ 10,000/- is also unwarranted in law - Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|