9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Importation under O.G.L. without registration of contract with Iron & Steel Controller within 15 days, confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, imposition of fine in lieu of confiscation for technical lapse. Analysis: The appeal involved the importation of Cold Rolled High Speed Steel Strips under O.G.L. without registering the contract with the Iron & Steel Controller within 15 days, leading to the Customs objecting to the clearance. The Addl. Collector adjudged confiscation and imposed a fine for the non-registration, considering it a technical lapse. The Addl. Collector held that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act due to the lack of a valid I.T.C. license, ordering confiscation but allowing redemption on payment of a fine. During the appeal hearing, it was argued that the contract with the foreign supplier was entered into before the Public Notice date, with a confirmation date prior to the notice. The lapse in registration was claimed to be unintentional, with the appellants being Actual Users intending the goods for their own use, not for trade. The Customs argued that the non-registration led to a violation of O.G.L. conditions, justifying confiscation. The timeline of events, including the shipment date and opening of the Letter of Credit, was scrutinized to determine compliance with the Public Notice requirements. The judge considered the submissions and records, noting that the contract was confirmed before the Public Notice, making immediate registration impossible. The requirement to register within 15 days of contract per the Public Notice was not feasible in this case. The judge criticized the Addl. Collector for not distinguishing between trivial breaches and significant violations, emphasizing that confiscation should not be automatic for minor lapses. The unintentional nature of the non-registration, coupled with the timing of the contract, led the judge to overturn the Addl. Collector's decision, directing a refund of any fine paid by the appellants. In conclusion, the judgment highlighted the importance of distinguishing between technical lapses and significant breaches in customs matters. The judge emphasized the need for a nuanced approach, considering the unintentional nature of the non-registration and the impracticality of immediate compliance due to the timing of the contract. The decision ultimately favored the appellants, granting relief from the imposed fine and setting aside the order of confiscation by the Addl. Collector.
|
