9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Whether goods described as "tube assembly" imported by the appellant would be cleared without a production of import license.
Analysis: 1. The goods subject to appeal C/50/98 and C/49/95 were imported from Saudi Arabia and arrived in Mumbai on specific dates. A circular from the Directorate of Foreign Trade dated 18-7-95 mentioned restrictions on importing packing bottles without an import license. 2. The appellant argued that the goods were for packing industrial sealant, and the shipment in appeal 49/98 was after a clarification from the licensing authority, justifying coverage under the clarification. The delay in the circular's notice was not a defense for unlawful import. 3. The penalty imposed on the appellant was discussed, with a distinction made between the two consignments. The consignment shipped before the clarification required a separate determination on permissibility for import, independent of the circular. 4. The judgment highlighted that the packaging bottles with nozzles for sealant application were not consumer goods, drawing on precedents regarding similar items not classified as consumer goods. The bottles did not fulfill any human needs as empty containers with closures. 5. The conclusion was that the consignments could not be deemed as unauthorized imports due to being classified as consumer goods. Appeal C/50/98 was allowed, while Appeal C/49/98 was partially allowed, with the penalty of Rs. 30,000 being set aside.
|
