9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Dispute over correctness of impugned order-in-appeal regarding confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fine, and penalty under Sections 111(d) and 112(a) of the Customs Act. Analysis: The appellants contested the impugned order-in-appeal concerning the confiscation of goods, redemption fine, and penalty under Sections 111(d) and 112(a) of the Customs Act. The facts were disputed as the goods, cast iron water meters, and brass forged ball valves were imported from China. The bill of entry declared China as the country of origin. However, during examination at the docks, it was found that the country of origin was not indicated on the goods, leading to confiscation due to non-compliance with Notification No. 1/64-Cus., dated 18-1-64. The Tribunal noted that the origin of the goods was supposed to be indicated by the supplier, while the appellants were only required to declare the origin in the bill of entry, which they did. The omission of clause (v) of Notification No. 1/64-Cus., dated 18-1-64 by Notification No. 61/2000, dated 10-10-2000 meant that the indication of the country of origin on the goods was no longer essential by the supplier. The Revenue argued that clause (viii) of the Notification still required the indication of the country of origin, but the Tribunal disagreed, stating that the goods in question did not fall within the scope of that clause. Citing a previous judgment in a similar case, the Tribunal vacated the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty imposed on the importer, as the case of the appellants was covered by that precedent. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeal of the appellants with consequential relief as per the law. The decision was dictated and pronounced in open court.
|
