9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Liability to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Act for imported cordless telephones.
In this case, the main issue was the liability to confiscation under clause (d) of Section 111 of the Act concerning the import of 400 cordless telephones in August 2001 by the appellant. The notice issued to the importer proposed enhancement of the declared value of the telephones and confiscation under clause (d) of Section 111 on the grounds that the goods were not imported from authorized sources and required permissions from the Department of Telecommunications. The Commissioner ordered enhancement of value, confiscation of goods, an option for redemption on payment of a fine, and imposed a penalty. The reason given was the violation of conditions under the Indian Wireless Telegraphy Act, 1933, and the requirement of specific permissions. The appellant contested that there was no legal prohibition on importing these goods. The court considered the relevant provisions of law and circulars from the Department of Telecommunications. The circular referred to in the notice did not prohibit the import of cordless telephones but rather outlined procedures for their use. Subsequently, a letter from Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Ltd. (MTNL) stated restrictions on approved models for use, but this did not constitute evidence of import prohibition. The court also analyzed the ITC HS Classification 2001 edition, which indicated that cordless telephones were free for import under specific headings. It was concluded that there was no legal basis for the confiscation of the goods or the penalty imposed, as the import did not contravene any laws. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside.
|
