9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties under the Customs Act. 2. Contravention of provisions of the Customs Act and Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. 3. Appeal against the Order-in-Original regarding the misdeclaration of goods. Analysis: Issue 1: The first issue revolves around the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties under the Customs Act. The Commissioner had ordered the confiscation of 44 cartons of Dyed fabrics and imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000 along with a penalty of Rs. 25,000 on the appellants. However, the Tribunal observed that the order of confiscation was not in accordance with the law. The Tribunal noted that there was no specific prohibition on the export of textile fabrics marked as "Made in China," and since such goods were not declared as "specified goods" for prohibited export, the confiscation order was deemed unjustified. Consequently, the penalty under Section 114(1) was considered not imposable. Issue 2: The second issue pertains to the contravention of provisions of the Customs Act and the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. The Commissioner had found the exporter to be in violation of Section 11 and Section 50(2) of the Customs Act, along with Section 74 of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act, 1958. However, the Tribunal disagreed with this finding. It was observed that the exporter had not contravened Section 50(2) as the shipping bill had correctly declared the country of manufacture as "Made in India." Additionally, the Tribunal highlighted that the goods being sealed and stuffed by Central Excise Officers further supported the exporter's compliance with the law. The absence of a specific penal provision indication in the order further led to the conclusion that the penalty imposition was not justified. Issue 3: The final issue concerns the appeal against the Order-in-Original regarding the misdeclaration of goods. The appellants had argued that the stamping of "Made in China" on the goods was done as per the buyer's requirement and that they had expressed willingness to rectify the stampings in line with the shipping bill declaration. The Tribunal accepted this argument, emphasizing that the mere absence of the country of origin on the fabrics did not constitute a violation of the Trade and Merchandise Marks Act. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeal was allowed with any consequential relief. In conclusion, the Tribunal's judgment focused on the lack of legal basis for the confiscation and penalties imposed, the absence of contravention of relevant provisions, and the exporter's compliance with the shipping bill declarations, ultimately leading to the appeal being allowed in favor of the appellants.
|
