9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Appeal against imposition of redemption fine and penalties for violation of Customs Act, 1962 Sections 111(d) and 111(m) regarding import of hydrogenated vegetable oil from Sri Lanka under Indo-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement.
Detailed Analysis: 1. Facts and Allegations: The appellants imported hydrogenated vegetable oil from Sri Lanka under the Indo-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement. The case was made against them for violating the import regulations specified in various DGFT notifications. The Bill of Lading was dated 5-6-2006, and subsequent notifications were issued regarding the import of vanaspati products. 2. Appellant's Submission: The advocate for the appellants argued that at the time of import, Notification No. 32 dated 11th Sept. 2006 was not available to them, and they were given the benefit of an earlier notification for duty assessment. The advocate contended that the goods should not be liable for confiscation and penalties based on the subsequent notification. 3. Respondent's Argument: The Departmental Representative supported the impugned order, emphasizing that the goods were rightly confiscated, and the appellants should pay the redemption fine and penalties as imposed. 4. Judicial Examination: After hearing both parties, the Tribunal examined whether the appellants were entitled to the benefit of Notification No. 32 dated 11th Sept. 2006 or if the goods were liable for confiscation as restricted goods. The Tribunal analyzed the documents related to the consignment, including the Bill of Lading, certificate of origin, and statements from involved parties. 5. Key Findings and Decision: Upon reviewing the impugned order and the submissions, the Tribunal noted discrepancies in the Bill of Lading date and other documents. However, it concluded that the changes in the Bill of Lading date were made on the appellants' instructions, leading to mis-declaration. Despite this, the Tribunal held that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the later notification, rendering the goods non-restricted. As a result, the provisions of Sections 111(d) and 111(m) were deemed inapplicable, and the goods were not liable for confiscation, redemption fine, or penalties. 6. Final Verdict: The Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with consequential relief, if any. It emphasized that once import became allowable under the relevant notification, the issue of fraudulent corrections in documents became irrelevant. The decision focused on the entitlement of the appellants to the benefits of the applicable notification, leading to the reversal of the penalties imposed. 7. Conclusion: The judgment highlights the importance of complying with import regulations and the significance of benefiting from relevant notifications in determining the liability for confiscation and penalties under the Customs Act, 1962. The detailed analysis of documents and legal provisions led to a favorable outcome for the appellants in this case.
|
