9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Import of goods violating DGFT conditions, penalty imposition, re-export direction modification, quality standard certification requirement, supply to Defence Ministry certification.
Analysis: 1. Violation of DGFT Conditions: The case involves the importation of goods from Bangladesh by the appellants in October 2007, with the goods being supplied in February 2008. However, during this period, the DGFT imposed a restriction that the goods must meet BIS standards and the exporter should be registered with BIS. The violation of this condition occurred unintentionally as the goods were ordered before the restriction was in place. 2. Penalty Imposition: The advocate for the appellants argued that the goods were meant for supply to the Defence Ministry, and the appellants had given an undertaking to the Customs Authorities. Considering the unique circumstances of the case, a lenient approach was deemed necessary. The judge reduced the penalty imposed by the lower authorities from Rs. 15,000 to Rs. 5,000 due to the contravention of the Import Policy. 3. Re-export Direction Modification: The original authority had directed re-export of the impugned goods. However, the judge modified this direction, allowing the appellants to take clearance of the goods on the condition that they produce a certificate from local BIS Authorities confirming the quality standard of the goods. Additionally, the appellants were required to provide a certificate to the Customs Authorities proving that the goods had been supplied to the Defence Ministry. 4. Quality Standard Certification Requirement: The judgment emphasized the importance of ensuring that the impugned goods meet the quality standard set by the BIS. The appellants were allowed to clear the goods only upon providing the necessary certification from the local BIS Authorities. 5. Supply to Defence Ministry Certification: Another condition imposed was that the appellants must produce a certificate to the Customs Authorities confirming that the impugned goods had indeed been supplied to the Defence Ministry. This certification was a crucial requirement for allowing the clearance of the goods. In conclusion, the appeal was allowed with a reduced penalty, modification of the re-export direction, and the imposition of conditions related to quality standard certification and certification of supply to the Defence Ministry. The judgment highlighted the unintentional nature of the violation and the need for a lenient approach considering the specific circumstances of the case.
|
