Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2017 (12) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (12) TMI 102 - AT - CustomsConfiscation of goods - scope of the term 'importer' - mutilation of goods - Held that: - these appeals can be disposed off on pure question of law as to who is importer. Undisputedly, appellant is a unit situated in SEZ area has cleared the goods from SEZ to DTA though he had filed Bills of Entry on behalf of the DTA unit, discharged duty liability on behalf of DTA unit as is mandated in. It is conceptually clear that clearance made from a SEZ to DTA are considered as imports for the DTA unit and the provisions of the Customs Act 1962 would apply in full force to such imports. In the case in hand, undoubtedly the goods got cleared from the SEZ unit of Anita exports and was examined in the DTA wherein some discrepancy were found out, if that be so, the importer of the said goods from DTA is required to discharge the duty, if any, is the law as it is not the case of the Revenue that the importers were non-existent. The appellant Anita Exports cannot be considered as an importer, in the facts and circumstances of this case. Accordingly, no duty liability arises and hence goods even if they are liable for confiscation no duty liability arises on the appellant herein. The case in hand, since the goods area mutilated goods and the appellant being held as not an importer, the appeals to the extent they contest the impugned order before this Tribunal are allowed - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
|