9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of EXIM Policy provisions regarding import of hazardous chemicals, Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962, Imposition of redemption fine and penalty, Requirement of intimation before import, Presence of mens rea for imposing penalty, Legal validity of DGFT Notification dated 16-2-2004, Need for reference to Larger Bench for contradictory judgments. Analysis: The appeal was filed against an Order-in-Original passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Visakhapatnam, concerning the import of "acetone" by the appellants. The Commissioner held the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 due to the appellants' violation of EXIM Policy provisions. A redemption fine and penalty were imposed, leading the appellants to challenge the order before the Tribunal. The appellants argued that their non-compliance with the procedural requirement should not result in such severe penalties as it did not affect the import of goods substantially. They contended that all mandatory requirements like filing of Bill of Entry and payment of duties were met, and the non-intimation of import details was unintentional due to lack of awareness regarding the DGFT Notification. The Tribunal noted previous judgments on similar issues and highlighted a significant legal point regarding the DGFT Notification dated 16-2-2004. It was clarified that the Customs authorities were unaware of this notification when permitting import and warehousing of the goods. The Tribunal emphasized that the non-intimation was not deliberate but due to lack of awareness, thus ruling out the presence of mens rea for imposing penalties. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where it was established that the impugned goods were not liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act due to the legal validity of the DGFT Notification. It was concluded that the confiscation and penalty imposed were not legally justified, leading to the appeal being allowed with consequential relief by setting aside the impugned order. In light of the legal clarity provided by previous judgments and the specific circumstances of the case, the Tribunal found no need to refer the issue to a Larger Bench. The decision was pronounced in open court, emphasizing the importance of legal awareness and compliance with procedural formalities in import transactions.
|
