9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Classification of imported goods under Foreign Trade Act, requirement of licence, imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Customs Act. Analysis: The appeal in question pertains to the classification of imported goods, specifically "V93 Hiko Trays," under the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. The Commissioner held that these plastic trays fall under sub-heading 3926.90 of the Customs Tariff Act, requiring a licence for importation. The appellant, however, declared them under a different classification, arguing that they can be imported under Open General Licence (OGL). The Commissioner confirmed that the goods require a licence due to being consumer goods, leading to the confiscation order. Despite the lenient view taken by the Commissioner, a redemption fine of Rs. 2,80,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 60,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962, were imposed. The appellant contended that the plastic trays were intended for germinating seeds and raising saplings for re-plantation, not for evading duty, and should not be considered consumer goods. Reference was made to a Supreme Court judgment in a similar context. On the other hand, the Respondent argued that the goods were indeed consumer goods necessitating a licence, and the penalty imposed was appropriate. The Tribunal examined the impugned order and noted similarities with a previous case involving mineral water containers classified as consumer durables, requiring a specific import licence and attracting penalties. The Tribunal referred to the definition of consumer goods in the EXIM policy and upheld the Commissioner's decision that the imported goods were consumer items requiring a licence. Previous judgments were cited to support this interpretation. The Tribunal rejected the appellant's request to classify the goods under a different chapter, emphasizing that the plastic trays fell under the category of consumer goods and not machinery. Considering the precedents and the absence of intent to evade duty, the Tribunal upheld the imposition of penalties in line with the relevant legislation. In conclusion, the Tribunal found no merit in the appeal, as the Commissioner had already granted relief through a nominal fine and penalty. The penalty imposed was deemed appropriate given the nature of the imported goods and the requirement for a specific licence. The Tribunal distinguished the case from previous judgments where mis-declaration and intent to evade duty were present, leading to the rejection of the appeal in this instance.
|
