9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (6) TMI 361 - AT - CustomsImport of cartridges for use in Rifle with spare barrel by the person who is the shot/sportsmen and a coach - Restricted itmes - Whether original authorization from DGFT for import of goods being cartridges etc. was required and submission of the same in original to the Custom authorities for clearance is sine qua non, for getting clearance? HELD THAT - The production of the import license issued by DGFT was necessary for clearance of the goods, being cartridges etc. filed under Bill of Entry No. 8071705 dated 22 January 2015. However, in view of the status of the appellant, being renowned shot/sportsmen and a coach of international repute, winner of Draunacharya Award from the Government of India, there is no reason to disbelieve the appellant that he has not imported any other consignments under the said import license, which has finally expired on 31.1.2015. Admittedly, the Bill of Entry was filed on 22.1.2015 when the import license was valid, satisfying the condition of import for restrictive goods . Further, I find that the Principal Commissioner have issued utilization certificate dated 23 June 2016, which clearly states that the appellant have only imported one consignment earlier on 25 May, 2013 (Rifle with spare barrel), and hence is legally entitled to import the goods under the present bill of entry under dispute. Further non-import of cartridges, more than that permitted under the Import License , is also corroborated from the original Arms License , produced at the time of hearing. The cartridges imported under present bill of entry dated 22.1.2015, is within the quantity permitted under the Arms License as well as the import license issued by DGFT, which is not disputed - the order of confiscation of the consignment under Bill of Entry No. 8071705 dated 22.1.2015 is uncalled for and accordingly, is set aside along with the penalty. The Custom Department is directed to release the goods under Bill of Entry 8071705 dated 22.1.2015 forthwith to the appellant within a period of one month from the date of production or receipt of this order - Appeal allowed.
Issues Involved:
1. Requirement of original authorization from DGFT for import clearance. 2. Validity and utilization of the import license. 3. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty. 4. Entitlement to clear the goods under the import license. 5. Waiver of warehouse charges or demurrage. Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Requirement of Original Authorization from DGFT for Import Clearance: The central issue in this appeal was whether the original authorization from DGFT for the import of cartridges and other goods was mandatory for clearance by Customs authorities. The appellant, a renowned shooter, had an import license which was valid at the time of filing the Bill of Entry. However, the original license was reported lost, and a copy was provided instead. The Customs authorities insisted on the original license for clearance, which led to the confiscation of the goods. 2. Validity and Utilization of the Import License: The appellant held an 'Advance import license' issued by the Joint Director General of Foreign Trade for importing specific items, including cartridges. The license was valid and revalidated up to 31 January 2015. The Bill of Entry was filed on 22 January 2015, during the validity period. The appellant provided evidence that the original license was valid and available when the goods landed, and the DGFT confirmed that the license could not be renewed post-expiry, ensuring no misuse. 3. Confiscation of Goods and Imposition of Penalty: The goods were confiscated, and a penalty of ?1,10,000 was imposed under Section 112(A) of the Customs Act due to the non-submission of the original import license. The appellant argued that the confiscation was unwarranted as the goods were imported during the license's validity, and the loss of the original license was reported with an FIR. 4. Entitlement to Clear the Goods under the Import License: The appellant contended that the import license covered the import of the cartridges, and the utilization certificate from the Principal Commissioner of Customs confirmed that only one prior consignment had been cleared under the license. The appellant had not imported any other consignment under the said license, and the goods under dispute were within the permitted quantity. 5. Waiver of Warehouse Charges or Demurrage: Considering the appellant's status as a renowned sportsman and the circumstances of the case, the tribunal waived any warehouse charges or demurrage above ?25,000. The tribunal directed the Customs Department to release the goods upon the appellant filing an appropriate indemnity bond. Judgment: The tribunal found that the requirement to produce the original import license was essential but acknowledged the appellant's bona fide status and the validity of the import license at the time of filing the Bill of Entry. The tribunal set aside the order of confiscation and the penalty, directing the Customs Department to release the goods forthwith upon the appellant filing an indemnity bond. The appeal was allowed with consequential benefits, and the impugned order was set aside.
|
