9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Confiscation of imported equipment - Imposition of penalty on the importer - Consideration of impugned goods as ship stores - Application of Sections 86 and 87 of the Customs Act, 1962 - Requirement of IEC code for import clearance - Misdeclaration of goods description Confiscation of Imported Equipment: The Tribunal noted that the matter was brought before them for the second time due to a previous remand. The impugned goods, computer equipment imported by the appellant, were initially held not to be ship stores. The Commissioner confiscated the goods and imposed a penalty as the equipment was not considered ship stores under Section 2(38) of the Act. The Commissioner also found that the importer did not possess an Importer Exporter Code (IEC) and had misdeclared the classification of the goods. The order allowed the appellant to redeem the goods on payment of a fine or re-export them. Imposition of Penalty on the Importer: The Commissioner imposed a penalty on the appellant for the alleged violations, including not possessing an IEC code and misdeclaring the goods. The penalty was set at Rs. One lakh, with an option for the appellant to redeem the goods by paying a fine of Rs. 1.50 lakh. The appellant contested the penalty and sought to vacate the impugned order. Consideration of Impugned Goods as Ship Stores: The Tribunal acknowledged that the impugned goods were imported for use in a dredger belonging to a foreign company. The Tribunal referred to Sections 86 and 87 of the Customs Act, which allow for the transfer of imported ship stores between vessels or aircraft without duty payment. Previous tribunal decisions were cited to support the argument that dredgers could be considered as ocean-going vessels, thereby justifying the treatment of the imported goods as ship stores. Application of Sections 86 and 87 of the Customs Act, 1962: Sections 86 and 87 of the Customs Act were crucial in determining the treatment of imported ship stores. These sections allow for the transfer of ship stores between vessels or aircraft without duty payment, subject to proper officer permission. The Tribunal interpreted these provisions to support the transfer of the impugned goods to the dredger without duty payment. Requirement of IEC Code for Import Clearance: The Commissioner had raised the issue of the importer not possessing an IEC code, which was considered a violation. However, the Tribunal clarified that the import governed by Sections 86 and 87 of the Act did not necessitate an IEC code for clearance. Therefore, the charge of import without an IEC code was deemed unsustainable in this context. Misdeclaration of Goods Description: The Commissioner had accused the appellant of misdeclaring the classification of the imported goods. However, the Tribunal found that the description of the impugned goods was declared correctly by the appellant. As a result, the charge of misdeclaration was dismissed, and the order of confiscation based on this ground was vacated. In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of confiscation and the penalty imposed on the appellant. The judgment emphasized the correct application of provisions related to ship stores and clarified the requirements for import clearance under the Customs Act.
|
