Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (4) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (4) TMI 1050 - CESTAT MUMBAIImport of prohibited goods - ‘parts of electric iron’ - case of Revenue is that the appellant imported ‘Euroline’ brand of ‘electric iron’, comprising the main component and certain other parts, excluding ‘power supply’ and ‘base’, in the impugned transaction and the excluded parts were imported separately with intent to evade compliance with the norms of the Bureau of Indian Standards - HELD THAT:- It is on record that the impugned goods, upon examination and not by the mere reliance on legal fiction in the interpretative rules, were found to be the most vital component of ‘electric iron’ and that the goods were so packed as to easily integrate the other two parts which, admittedly, had been imported separately but concurrently, to support the finding that the goods are, indeed, ‘electric iron.’ Indubitably, the prescriptions of Bureau of Indian Standards, made available by Learned Consultant, applies to the finished product and not to the parts but the most essential component that is impugned in this dispute, if allowed to remain non-compliant, would not be conducive to public safety. As the imported goods, though required to be, are not compliant with the standards, they fail to overcome the bar of prohibition at the threshold. Hence the question of duty liability, differential or otherwise, will not arise. Penalty under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 - HELD THAT:- The goods were imported for sale in India but were ordered to be re-exported. Penalty is an instrument of deterrence. Re-export is not without any financial consequence to the importer. That should be sufficient deterrent against such imports - Penalty set aside. The impugned order is modified and the detriment limited to that of re-export of the said goods without having to redeem the goods and without being penalised - appeal disposed off.
|