9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Stay of operation of the impugned order regarding the attempted export of goods not deemed "prohibited" under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act. Analysis: The Revenue filed an application seeking a stay of the impugned order where the lower appellate authority held that the goods attempted to be imported were not "prohibited" under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, and no duty was leviable on them. The original authority had confiscated the goods, and a redemption fine and penalty were imposed. The appeal was allowed by the Commissioner (Appeals) based on a previous Tribunal decision and a Supreme Court ruling. The Revenue contested this decision. The Revenue argued that the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) was not sustainable in light of a Supreme Court judgment in a different case. They claimed that the impugned order should be stayed. The Tribunal analyzed the cited Supreme Court judgment, which dealt with over-invoicing of goods for export and the definition of "prohibited" goods. The Tribunal found that the issue in the current case was analogous to the one addressed in the Supreme Court judgment. The Tribunal concluded that the Revenue had a strong case for a stay of the impugned order based on the Supreme Court ruling. In summary, the Tribunal granted a stay of the operation of the impugned order until the final disposal of the appeal, based on the analogical application of a Supreme Court ruling regarding the misdeclaration of quantity of inputs in export goods. The decision was made after considering the specific issue addressed by the Supreme Court and its relevance to the current case, where the attempted export was under a quantity-based advance license scheme.
|
