2016 (12) TMI 1437 - AT - Customs

Compliance with condition of Notification No.44(RE-2000)/1997-2002 dated 24.11.2000 - Boll Bearings imported from China - end use test - whether the goods imported were for retail sale or for industrial customers and whether condition of notification need to be fulfilled? - Held that - I find that there were certain requirements specified by the notification dated 24.11.2000, not complied with by the importer/appellant. However, the importers were eligible to rectify those shortcomings to fulfill the requirements of said Notification dated 24.11.2000 by applying Public Notice No.16/2013, referred to earlier and if the importers are allowed to rectify the shortcomings in the information, required as per said notification No.24.11.2000, before the goods are cleared from Customs Control, there would not be any violation requiring the goods to be confiscated and redeemed - I direct Principal Commissioner of Customs Noida, Customs Commissionerate to allow the importer to fulfill the requirement for compliance of Notification No.44 (RE-2000)/1997-2000 dated 24.11.2000, by pasting stickers on the goods imported when the goods are still under the control of Customs before their clearance and after satisfying that the said requirements have been fulfilled, allow the clearance of goods on payment of appropriate duty of Customs. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with Legal Metrology Rules 2011 for imported goods intended for industrial consumers.
2. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Application of case law precedent in similar cases.
5. Justification for not complying with tribunal's decision in a previous case.

Comprehensive Analysis:

1. The appellant imported Boll Bearings from China and filed Bill of Entry for assessment and clearance. Customs Authorities found shortcomings in compliance with Legal Metrology Rules 2011, leading to a show cause notice for confiscation under Section 111(d) and penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant argued that since the goods were for industrial consumers, they were not required to comply with the notification dated 24.11.2000. They also cited a tribunal decision and Public Notice No.16/2013 allowing labeling before duty payment to request clearance without further proceedings.

2. The Original Authority issued an Order-in-Original for confiscation of goods and imposed fines. The appellant appealed, contending that compliance with the notification was required before clearance, and confiscation was unwarranted based on a previous tribunal decision. The counsel urged to allow the appeal, challenging the reasons given by the Original Authority for non-compliance with the tribunal's decision in the previous case.

3. The Tribunal considered the arguments, noting that the importer could rectify the compliance shortcomings before clearance under Public Notice No.16/2013. The Tribunal found the Original Authority's justification for not applying the previous tribunal decision insufficient, as the purchase orders were not submitted as claimed. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, directing the Customs Commissionerate to allow the importer to fulfill the notification requirements by pasting stickers on the goods before clearance, ensuring compliance before allowing clearance upon payment of appropriate duty.

4. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, disposing of the Miscellaneous Application and granting the appellant consequential relief as per law. The decision emphasized the importance of compliance with notification requirements before clearance and the need for Customs to facilitate rectification of compliance issues before confiscation or penalty imposition.

This detailed analysis highlights the key issues, arguments presented, tribunal's considerations, and the final decision, ensuring a comprehensive understanding of the judgment.