9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Import of incorrect goods under a Quantity Based Advance License. 2. Allegation of violation of Customs Act Sections 111(m) & 111(d). 3. Confiscation of goods, re-export, and imposition of penalties. Issue 1: Import of incorrect goods under a Quantity Based Advance License The appellant, engaged in manufacturing Quartz Analogue Watches, imported goods from a supplier, M/s. Ravi Diffuser, for manufacturing activities. However, upon examination, it was discovered that the imported goods did not match the invoice description. The goods received were complete watches and clocks in SKD condition, including Mechanical Movements, which were not permissible for import without a license. This led to an allegation that the appellant was liable for violating the Customs Act by importing unauthorized goods under the license. Issue 2: Allegation of violation of Customs Act Sections 111(m) & 111(d) The Commissioner ordered the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act due to the unauthorized import of complete watches and clocks in SKD condition. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 2.5 Lakhs was imposed on the importer for this violation. The appellant argued that they had ordered permissible goods and did not intend to receive the incorrect shipment. They requested permission to return the goods without facing penalties. The lower authority acknowledged the mistake and permitted the reshipment of the goods. Issue 3: Confiscation of goods, re-export, and imposition of penalties The Tribunal considered the appellant's plea that the license covered all components, including SKD imports, and argued that the goods fell under the license's purview. Referring to previous judgments, the Tribunal found that there was no malice in the appellant's request for reshipment and reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 6 Lakhs to Rs. 25,000, stating that fines should be related to the margin of profit. The Tribunal also set aside the penalty on the importer, noting the allowance for reshipment and the lack of questioning the mistake's bona fide nature. The Tribunal directed the reshipment to be completed within a month from the date of the order, partially allowing the appeal on the mentioned terms. In conclusion, the judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai addressed the issues of unauthorized import under a license, violation of Customs Act sections, confiscation of goods, re-export, and penalties. The Tribunal considered the circumstances, the appellant's intentions, and previous legal precedents to determine the appropriate course of action, ultimately partially allowing the appeal and adjusting the fines and penalties imposed on the importer.
|
