9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2016 (1) TMI 427 - AT - CustomsRe-export of old moulds - moulds were imported earlier for the manufacture of tyres - Revenue s contention is that as per the provisions of Para 2.3 of the Hand Book of Procedure at the relevant time the appellant could not have sold mould without prior permission from DGFT. - Held that - it is not in dispute that goods were sold and re-exported - relevant para of the Hand Book Procedure makes no distinction between sale within India and sale outside India and therefore there is violation of provisions of Import and Export Policy/Hand Book of Procedure. Confiscation of the goods therefore is upheld. - However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, redemption fine is reduced to ₹ 50,000/-. We do not find it to be fit case for imposing penalty. Penalty is therefore set aside. - Decided partly in favor of appellant.
Issues: Violation of provisions of Import and Export Policy/Hand Book of Procedure regarding re-export of imported goods. Confiscation of goods, imposition of redemption fine, and penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962.
In this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI, the appellant imported old moulds for manufacturing tyres from a foreign supplier, later finding them unsatisfactory and re-exporting them without prior permission from the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). The Revenue contended that the re-export violated Para 2.3 of the Hand Book of Procedure, leading to confiscation of the goods, a redemption fine of Rs. 1,24,000, and a penalty under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that Para 2.3 of the Hand Book applied to sales within India, not re-exports, and that their action was a technical sale due to the unusability of the imported moulds. The Revenue reiterated its position from the impugned order, emphasizing the violation of the relevant provisions. The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that the goods were indeed sold and re-exported, finding that the Hand Book made no distinction between sales within or outside India. Consequently, the violation of Import and Export Policy/Hand Book of Procedure was upheld, leading to the confirmation of the goods' confiscation. However, considering the circumstances, the redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 50,000. The Tribunal deemed it inappropriate to impose a penalty, setting it aside. The appeal was dismissed with the modification of the redemption fine reduction.
|
