9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Challenge to legality of the order confirming confiscation of imported goods under Customs Act. Analysis: The petitioner challenged the order confirming the confiscation of goods imported under a transferable REP license. The Customs authorities alleged that the imported goods were not related to the export product and could not be considered as raw material. The Deputy Collector of Customs directed confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act without offering the option of paying a redemption fine. The petitioner's appeal before the Collector of Customs (Appeals) was dismissed, leading to the filing of the present petition. The learned Single Judge initially observed that there was no restriction that the imported goods must be related to the exported ones. The Judge directed the release of the goods upon the petitioner furnishing a bank guarantee and escorting the goods to a bonded warehouse under Customs Officers' supervision. The whisky was ultimately used for blending under Customs Officers' supervision. The petitioner's counsel argued that the orders passed by the authorities should be set aside due to subsequent developments during the petition's pendency. The Court found merit in the petitioner's submission, citing a previous decision where it was held that imported goods need not be related to the export product. The Court did not delve into whether the imported whisky could be considered raw material, as the goods had been cleared and used during the petition. The Court set aside the orders of the authorities below based on the developments during the petition, clarifying that this decision did not establish imported whisky as raw material. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside, and the bank guarantee was discharged, with no costs awarded. In conclusion, the Court's decision was based on the developments during the petition, setting aside the orders confiscating the imported goods. The Court clarified that the decision did not establish imported whisky as raw material, leaving that determination for a future case. The petitioner succeeded in challenging the legality of the orders, leading to the discharge of the bank guarantee without any costs awarded.
|
