9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 876 - AT - CustomsImport of prohibited item - batteries as per ISO-9128 specifications or not? - confiscation - Held that - whatever material relied upon by Revenue for holding the goods as prohibited and in respect of country of origin, the same is not sufficient to hold against the appellant - it cannot be said that the appellant have mis-declared the goods only on the basis of report received from ERTL (W). As per the documents and certificate of origin it was found that the goods are of Malaysia origin. Therefore, only on the basis of internet website, the learned Commissioner has concluded that the goods are not of Malaysia origin which is not correct. The adjudicating authority need to give a relook in the entire issue and pass a fresh speaking order - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Nature of the battery - whether the batteries imported are as per ISO-9128 specifications. 2. Country of origin - whether the goods were manufactured in China or Malaysia. Nature of the Battery: The appellant imported 'Zinc Chloride Heavy Duty AA Battery,' and the Customs department suspected misdeclaration. Representative samples were sent to ERTL(W), Mumbai, for verification. The adjudicating authority held the batteries as prohibited goods, ordering re-export, and imposing a redemption fine and penalty. The appellant challenged the order, arguing that without a BIS report, it couldn't be conclusively proven that the batteries did not meet ISO specifications. The Tribunal agreed, emphasizing the lack of conclusive evidence from BIS. The matter was remanded for a fresh order. Country of Origin: Regarding the country of origin, the appellant claimed the goods were from Malaysia, supported by the stamp 'made in Malaysia.' The department suspected China as the origin based on internet research. However, the High Commission of India, Singapore, did not confirm this. The Tribunal noted that relying solely on internet sources was insufficient. It highlighted that the goods' documents and certificate of origin indicated Malaysia. The Tribunal found no conclusive evidence to support the confiscation based on the country of origin. As a result, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded for a fresh adjudication.
|
