2007 (11) TMI 44 - AT - Customs

Pre-shipment inspection certificate issued by Agency CBEC circular removed the impugned agency from the list of approved agencies As certificate was issued prior to the removal from list, genuineness of certificate cannot be suspected or questioned

Summary

Issues:
1. Request for adjournment not acceded to
2. Common issue in multiple appeals regarding imported MS scrap
3. Discrepancy in pre-shipment inspection certificate authenticity
4. Violation of procedures in importation of scrap
5. Appeal decision based on genuineness of certificate
6. Debarment of agency issuing certificate
7. Requirement of pre-shipment inspection certificate for security purposes
8. Lack of information on goods examination in the order
9. Set aside Commissioner's orders and remand for reconsideration

Analysis:
1. The appellant requested an adjournment, which was denied due to unacceptable grounds. The appeals were heard together as they involved a common issue related to the imported MS scrap.

2. The cases involved the importation of MS scrap sold on high sea sale basis, with pre-shipment inspection certificates from BSI Inspection Limited England. The goods originated from Guayaquil, and there were discrepancies in the certificates' details compared to the Exim Policy handbook.

3. The Commissioner confiscated the goods, imposed fines, and penalties citing the lack of genuine pre-shipment inspection certificates and the absence of contract copies as required by the Foreign Trade Policy. The learned SDR argued for dismissal of the appeals due to non-compliance posing security risks.

4. The Tribunal considered the discrepancy in the inspection certificate's details and the debarment of BSI post-issuance. However, the genuineness of certificates issued before the debarment date could not be questioned solely based on the subsequent event.

5. Emphasizing the security aspect, the Tribunal highlighted the need for genuine pre-shipment inspection certificates to prevent security hazards. The lack of such certificates or doubts on their authenticity necessitate careful examination of goods, with outcomes crucial for determining confiscation, fines, and penalties.

6. Given the absence of information on goods examination outcomes in the Commissioner's orders, the Tribunal set aside the decisions and remanded the cases for fresh consideration after addressing the observations and hearing the appellants again.

7. Ultimately, the appeals were allowed by way of remand, indicating a need for a comprehensive review of the cases in light of the Tribunal's observations and considerations.