9911796707
|
Home
Issues: Allegation of importing goods without a specific license, Contravention of Import (Control) Order, Confiscation of goods, Appeal against order of Collector of Customs (Appeals), Determination of goods as disposal lots or stock lots, Interpretation of disposal goods under Import (Control) Order, Burden of proof on department to establish goods as disposal goods, Consideration of relevant case law, Comparison with previous judgments, Absence of contrary judgments, Upholding order of Collector (Appeals).
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, Bombay, involved an appeal by the Collector of Customs against an order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, regarding the importation of shock absorbers without a specific license. The allegation was that the goods were stock lots or disposal lots, contravening the Import (Control) Order. The Deputy Collector of Customs ordered confiscation with an option for redemption upon payment of a fine. However, the Collector of Customs (Appeals) set aside this order based on a previous decision of the Bombay High Court, leading to the current appeal. During the appeal hearing, the appellant contended that the shock absorbers were of different models and manufacturers, purchased at low prices from dealers, indicating they were stock lots. The appellant argued that the goods could be considered disposal lots based on their pricing and origin. The appellant also challenged the reliance on the Bombay High Court decision, claiming it did not consider relevant provisions from the ITC Hand Book. As the respondents were absent, their side of the argument was not presented during the hearing. The Tribunal examined the records and noted that the goods, though purchased from stockists, were brand new and in original packaging. The burden was on the department to prove that the goods were disposal goods, but apart from size discrepancies and low value, no substantial evidence was provided. The Tribunal highlighted that the term "disposal goods" was not defined in the Import (Control) Order, emphasizing the lack of proof of the supplier's intention to dispose of the goods. Reference was made to a previous judgment by the Bombay High Court and subsequent decisions by the Tribunal, indicating consistency in interpreting disposal goods. Considering all aspects and the absence of contradictory judgments, the Tribunal upheld the order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals), rejecting the appeal by the Collector of Customs. The decision was based on the department's failure to establish the imported goods as disposal lots and the consistency in interpretation with previous legal precedents.
|
