9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
1. Classification of imported chemical "DICHLONE" under sub-heading 2921.4290 or Heading 3808. 2. Requirement of Registration from the Insecticides Board for import of "DICHLONE." 3. Confiscation of imported consignment with redemption fine and penalty imposition. 4. Mis-declaration of consignment under Chapter Heading 2921.4290 instead of 3808. Classification of imported chemical: The appellant classified "DICHLONE" under sub-heading 2921.4290, while revenue argued for Heading 3808 due to its inclusion in the Insecticides Act Schedule. The appellant lacked Insecticides Board Registration during import, leading to confiscation and penalty imposition upheld by lower authorities. The consultant did not contest classification but highlighted subsequent registration for non-insecticidal use. The Tribunal referenced Circular No. 61/2004-Cus. and Supreme Court precedent, affirming the requirement for a certificate for non-insecticidal purpose, justifying the consignment's confiscation. Requirement of Registration: The Tribunal emphasized the necessity of Insecticides Board Registration for "DICHLONE" import, citing legal provisions and court precedents. The appellant's failure to provide the required certificate led to the consignment's confiscation, aligning with the legal framework and Circular No. 61/2004-Cus. The judgment underscored the importance of compliance with registration mandates for such chemicals, upholding the lower authorities' decision on confiscation and penalty imposition. Confiscation and penalty imposition: The appeal challenged the confiscation of the imported consignment and the penalty imposed. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's argument regarding cost comparison with local procurement but upheld the confiscation due to lack of required registration during import. However, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 50,000, considering the circumstances and the appellant's subsequent registration. The penalty imposition was deemed lawful and warranted, requiring no alteration. Mis-declaration of consignment: Regarding the mis-declaration under Chapter Heading 2921.4290 instead of 3808, the Tribunal recognized the appellant's reliance on local availability under a different heading. Despite the mis-declaration, the judgment noted the absence of malicious intent and reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 50,000. The penalty imposition was upheld as lawful. The appeal was partially allowed, modifying the redemption fine while affirming the penalty imposition based on the circumstances and legal requirements. ---
|
