Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding


  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2019 (4) TMI 1050

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... e 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 secti .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... he power supply unit whereas the assessing officer proceeded on the erroneous presumption that these constituent parts had been imported separately with intent to evade the prohibition, under the Foreign Trade Policy, on import of electric iron that was bereft of approval of Bureau of Indian Standards. It is the claim of the appellant that the test of compliance with standards under another law cannot extend to parts of goods merely because the General Interpretative Rules in Customs Tariff Act, 1975 enables such wider prism for classification as the final product solely for the limited purpose of ascertainment of appropriate rate of duty and that enforcement of compliance with standards prescribed for imports, mirroring the requirements .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... s, 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. 4. On perusal of the decisions cited by Learned Consultant to justify the claim that imported goods, even if not compliant with norms prescribed by Bureau of Indian Standards, are not prohibited, we are unable to agree that the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Punjab Haryana in re Hindustan Ferro Alloys Pvt Ltd, on the issue of absolute confiscation of prohibited goods, applies to the present dispute which is on confiscability and condition of redemption. In re Sewpujanrai Indrasanarai Ltd, it was held that conditions that are impos .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ducive to public safety. As held in re Oetiker India Pvt Ltd, the potential of compromise to public safety and health would require ascertainment of compliance of the impugned goods with the standards. It is admitted by Learned Consultant that the importer is not a manufacturer and would not, thereby, be liable for non-compliance with standards of Bureau of Indian Standards norms. Faith in post-importation monitorial safety value can, often, be misplaced. The goods in the dispute in the decision in re Oetiker India Pvt Ltd also did have the privilege of obtaining exemption from the norms of Bureau of Indian Standards. No such exemption can be sought for the goods now impugned. It was incumbent on the appellant to obtain necessary certif .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... t aside the confiscation. Consequently, the option to redeem becomes infructuous. We concur with the lower authorities that the goods, being prohibited for import, be re-exported. 7. Now we turn to the penalty imposed under section 112 of Customs Act, 1962. 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. 8. Accordingly, we modify the impugned order and limit the detriment to that of re-export of the said goods without having to redeem the goods and without being penalised. The appeal is disposed off accordingly. (Pronounced in Court on 15- .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates