9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
1. Violation of import restrictions under ITC Notification. 2. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. 3. Consideration of leniency plea. 4. Interpretation of the requirement of a letter of credit for imports. 5. Application of policy changes to import contracts. 6. Pre-ban commitment considerations for imports. 7. Comparison with previous legal judgments on similar matters. Issue 1: Violation of import restrictions under ITC Notification: The company, engaged in the import of iron and steel, imported goods below the specified floor price after a policy amendment. The Customs Authorities interdicted the imports, leading to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner upheld the confiscation due to the violation of the restriction imposed by the ITC Notification. However, the company argued that they made efforts to cancel the contract upon learning of the policy change. Issue 2: Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962: The Commissioner imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 1.1 crores due to the violation of the import restriction. The company pleaded for leniency, citing their attempt to cancel the contract. The Commissioner considered their plea but still imposed the fine. The company appealed against this decision. Issue 3: Consideration of leniency plea: The company pleaded for leniency, stating that they tried to cancel the contract upon learning of the policy change but their supplier refused. They argued that most of their imports in the past were on a DA basis, and this import was their first after the restriction was imposed. The Commissioner acknowledged their plea but still imposed the redemption fine. Issue 4: Interpretation of the requirement of a letter of credit for imports: The Customs Appraising Manual was referenced to understand the nature and significance of a letter of credit in import transactions. The absence of a letter of credit was highlighted as a factor contributing to the violation of the import restriction. Issue 5: Application of policy changes to import contracts: The company entered into a contract before the policy change, attempted to cancel it upon notification of the change, but faced difficulties due to the supplier's refusal. The judgment considered the timing of the contract, shipment, and the impact of the policy change on the import transaction. Issue 6: Pre-ban commitment considerations for imports: The judgment discussed the applicability of pre-ban commitments to import transactions, emphasizing the need for a specific provision in the policy or public notice to allow clearance without penalty in cases of genuine contracts entered before the policy change. Issue 7: Comparison with previous legal judgments on similar matters: Reference was made to a previous legal judgment where the court found that the absence of an irrevocable letter of credit does not invalidate a genuine contract entered before a policy change. This comparison supported the argument that the redemption fine imposed in this case was not justified. In conclusion, the Appeals Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's orders and allowed the appeals, considering the genuine nature of the import contract and the efforts made by the company to comply with the policy changes.
|
