9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Import of Air Conditioners with prohibited gas. 2. Declaration in the bill of entry. 3. Intent of the importer. 4. Validity of impugned order. Analysis: Issue 1: The case involved the import of Air Conditioners containing HCFC-2 gas, a prohibited substance under Rule 10 of the Ozone Depleting Substances (Regulation & Control) Rules, 2000. The goods were confiscated due to the presence of the prohibited gas. Issue 2: The appellants declared the Air Conditioners in the bill of entry as "Air Conditioners (general window unit) without gas." However, upon examination, it was discovered that the Air Conditioners did contain the prohibited gas, contradicting the declaration made in the bill of entry. Issue 3: The appellants argued that they were unaware of the presence of gas in the Air Conditioners they imported, stating that there was no intention to import prohibited goods. They claimed that the bill of entry accurately reflected their belief that the Air Conditioners were without gas. Issue 4: The Revenue contended that the discrepancy between the bill of entry declaration and the actual contents of the Air Conditioners indicated an intention to import prohibited goods. The impugned order was upheld based on the finding that the appellants imported goods containing the prohibited gas, despite the bill of entry declaration stating otherwise. In the judgment, it was noted that the appellants' bill of entry declared the Air Conditioners as without gas, but the goods were found to contain the prohibited HCFC-2 gas upon examination. The court found no fault in the impugned order, as the import of ozone-depleting substances without a valid license is prohibited. The involvement of the Director in providing instructions to declare the goods without gas was highlighted, leading to the dismissal of the appeals. The judgment emphasized the importance of accurate declarations in import documentation and upheld the confiscation of the goods due to the presence of the prohibited gas.
|
