9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Confiscation of consignments under Section 111 of the Act - Interpretation of import policy regarding streptomycin and amikacin - Commissioner's decision on import restrictions - Appellant's argument on the importability of the goods - Justification for the confiscation and penalty imposed Confiscation of Consignments under Section 111 of the Act: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Mumbai, challenged the order of the Commissioner confiscating consignments of streptomycin sulphate and amikacin sulphate under the proviso of clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act. The consignments were found in the premises of the appellant's cousin, who attributed their ownership to the appellant. The appellant claimed the consignment was sent by a broker for sale on consignment account. The Commissioner proposed to confiscate the goods for non-production of an import license, imposing a fine and penalty under Section 112. Interpretation of Import Policy Regarding Streptomycin and Amikacin: The appellant contended that the import policy at the relevant time allowed the import of these goods without restrictions. The Policy under Heading 29.41 classified streptomycin and its derivatives, with import of streptomycin being restricted under sub-heading 10, while sub-heading 90 covered "other" antibiotics, including streptomycin sulphate. The appellant argued that amikacin fell under the residuary category, making it freely importable. The Commissioner, however, did not address these arguments, concluding that the import of the goods was restricted. Commissioner's Decision on Import Restrictions: The Commissioner's order did not engage with the appellant's interpretation of the import policy. The appellant's reliance on the Extra Pharmacopoeia and the Condensed Chemical Dictionary to distinguish between streptomycin and streptomycin sulphate was not considered. The Tribunal noted that streptomycin as a base differed from streptomycin sulphate, which was classified as a salt or derivative, both of which were freely importable. Similarly, the Tribunal accepted the appellant's argument that amikacin fell under the "other" category, making it eligible for free import. Appellant's Argument on the Importability of the Goods: The appellant successfully argued that there was no legal basis for the confiscation of the goods under Section 111 of the Act, as the import policy permitted the import of streptomycin sulphate and amikacin without restrictions. The Tribunal found merit in the appellant's interpretation of the import policy and concluded that the goods were wrongly confiscated and the penalty imposed was unjustified. Justification for Confiscation and Penalty Imposed: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order of the Commissioner. The decision highlighted the lack of legal grounds for the confiscation of the consignments and the imposition of penalties on the appellant. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the correct interpretation of the import policy and the misapplication of import restrictions by the Commissioner, leading to the reversal of the decision and the restoration of the appellant's rights regarding the consignments.
|
