9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (6) TMI 644 - AT - CustomsImposition of penalties u/s 112(a) and u/s 114AA of CA - import of White Poppy Seeds - whether the import of 340 MT of White Poppy Seeds of Chinese origin for which 4 Bills of Entry filed had been filed between 25.09.2009 to 08.10.2009 is in accordance with law or otherwise? HELD THAT - The explanation furnished by the Appellant in wrong mentioning of the reference number in the import documents had later been clarified/rectified by approaching the appropriate Chinese authorities, is acceptable being supported by letter dt.11.11.2010 issued by the Chinese authorities, a fact not controverted by the department. Therefore, the findings of the Commissioner that the imports were against cancelled Contract No.TTHK 09027 and not authorized is incorrect. On the contrary, the said contract No.TTHK 09027 was cancelled and Registration No.216/CBN/ Poppy Seeds/2009-10 has been surrendered; hence the consignments imported were against Contract No.TTHK 09028 with Registration No.217/CBN/Poppy Seeds/2009-10, which was validly obtained. Therefore, imports were authorised under Contract No.TTHK 09028 and under valid Registration No.217/CBN/Poppy Seeds/2009-10. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.
Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported goods under Customs Act, 1962. 2. Penalty imposition under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962. 3. Authorization of imports against specific contracts under the Foreign Trade Policy provisions. Issue 1: Confiscation of Imported Goods under Customs Act, 1962: The case involved the import of 340 MTs of White Poppy Seeds from China, leading to a Show Cause Notice proposing confiscation of goods and penalty under Customs Act, 1962. The learned Commissioner directed confiscation of the goods with an option for redemption on payment of a fine and imposed penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of the Act. The Appellant challenged this decision, arguing that the imports were authorized under a valid contract. Issue 2: Penalty Imposition under Sections 112(a) and 114AA of Customs Act, 1962: The Appellant contested the penalties imposed by the Commissioner, claiming that the imports were made in compliance with the Foreign Trade Policy provisions. The Commissioner's decision to confiscate the goods and levy penalties was based on the alleged unauthorized nature of the imports against specific contracts. Issue 3: Authorization of Imports against Specific Contracts under Foreign Trade Policy Provisions: The core issue revolved around whether the imports of White Poppy Seeds were authorized under the relevant contracts and registrations. The Appellant argued that despite discrepancies in import documents, the imports were made under a valid contract, which was later clarified and rectified with the Chinese authorities. The Commissioner's decision was challenged on the grounds that the imports were indeed authorized under the correct contract and registration. In a detailed analysis, the Tribunal found that the imports were authorized under Contract No. TTHK 09028 with valid Registration No. 217/CBN/Poppy Seeds/2009-10, contrary to the Commissioner's observation that the imports were against a cancelled contract. The Tribunal noted that the Appellant had rectified mistakes in the import documents with Chinese authorities, supported by relevant certificates and correspondence. The explanation provided by the Appellant regarding the discrepancies was deemed acceptable, as confirmed by Chinese authorities. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order, allowing the appeal with appropriate relief as per law.
|
