9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2017 (4) TMI 1074 - AT - CustomsProhibited goods - confiscation - the import documents did not contain all the attachments to Licence No. 4019041, as endorsed by BIS, New Delhi from time to time. In respect of other brands, the appellant importer could not produce any BIS Certificate as required - Held that - it nowhere have come in the report of the Customs Officers that such tyres are not of good quality on first check or visual examination. For these tyres, the Adjudicating Authority shall obtain a test report from a scientist of Central Institute of Road transport (CIRT) or some other lab, as acceptable to both the Revenue and the appellant, and if those tyres are found to be of acceptable quality as per the test reports so, obtained, then the Adjudicating Authority shall allow the same to be cleared for home consumption. Otherwise, the appellant will be required to re-export the same on payment of fine. So far redemption fine is concerned, the same shall be re-determined @ of 20% ADV of the tyres found not of acceptable quality as directed above, which shall be available for re-export on payment of redemption fine so determined. Matter on remand.
Issues:
1. Validity of BIS certification for imported tyres. 2. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Customs Act, 1962. 4. Discretionary element in exercising jurisdiction under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. Issue 1: Validity of BIS certification for imported tyres The appellant, an importer, filed a Bill of Entry for clearance of tubeless tyres of various brands and sizes. The Customs Officers found discrepancies in BIS certification for the tyres. The High Court considered the mandatory compliance with BIS certification requirements and the importance of safety in motor vehicles. The matter was remanded to the Commissioner (Appeals) for a fresh decision. Subsequently, the Commissioner found that the BIS certification for Nexen Brand Tyres had expired at the time of import. However, evidence presented later showed an extension of the license, allowing clearance for home consumption. Issue 2: Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 Initially, the Additional Commissioner ordered confiscation of the goods due to lack of proper BIS certification and the importer being a trader, not an authorized entity for tyre fitment. The Commissioner (Appeals) modified the order, reducing the redemption fine and removing the condition of re-export. The Tribunal upheld this decision, leading to the matter being brought before the High Court. The High Court emphasized the discretionary element in Section 125 of the Customs Act and remanded the case for reconsideration. Issue 3: Imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Customs Act, 1962 The Additional Commissioner imposed a redemption fine and penalty on the importer, which was later modified by the Commissioner (Appeals) and further reduced by the High Court. The Tribunal upheld the decision to reduce the penalty. The final order allowed for the release of Nexen Brand Tyres for home consumption and directed testing of other branded tyres for quality. The redemption fine was to be re-determined based on the quality of tyres found. Issue 4: Discretionary element in exercising jurisdiction under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 The High Court highlighted the discretionary nature of Section 125 and the importance of public safety in the context of BIS certification for imported goods. It directed the Commissioner (Appeals) to consider updated BIS certification for Nexen Tyres and to reassess the case after hearing both parties. The subsequent order allowed for the clearance of Nexen Brand Tyres and testing of other branded tyres for quality before deciding on re-export or home consumption. This detailed analysis of the judgment from the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT ALLAHABAD covers the issues of BIS certification validity, confiscation of goods, imposition of fines and penalties, and the discretionary element in jurisdiction under the Customs Act, 1962.
|
