2006 (11) TMI 71

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... Scrap". Under the impugned order the consignment remain confiscated. There is also penalty on the importer. 2.The ground for confiscation and penalty is that the consignment was not covered by pre-shipment inspection certificate as required under the DGFT Public Notice No. 16/2004-09 dated 15-10-2004. The specific objection is that pre-shipment inspection had not been carried out by authorized a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... el for the appellant is that clarification of 18-2-2005 does not have application in the present case inasmuch as the consignment was inspected and imported much before the issuance of the clarification. He also pointed out that the inspection certificate issued by Mumbai office should be considered as satisfying the requirement inasmuch as Mumbai office of Bureau Veritas is a notified agency. It .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s an authorized inspection agency. The appellant has, therefore, rightly contended that import is covered by inspection certificate of an authorized agency. DGFT clarification dated 18-2-2005 cannot have application in the present case since the inspection took place much before the issuance of the clarification of 18-2-2005. The consignment had also landed before this clarification in India. In t .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X