9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of a second-hand container imported along with a printing machine. 2. Interpretation of import licence provisions and applicable regulations. 3. Applicability of provisions under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 and Customs Act, 1962. Analysis: The appeal before the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, New Delhi concerned the confiscation of a second-hand container imported along with a printing machine by the appellants. The lower authorities had ordered the confiscation of the container as it was not specifically covered by the import licence submitted for the machine's clearance. The Deputy Collector of Customs imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000 in lieu of confiscation, which was upheld by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal. The appellants argued that the container was imported on a non-returnable basis as a substitute for conventional packing, with its value included under "seaworthy packing," and within the permissible limit of the import licence. They referenced para 131 of the Hand Book of Rules and Procedures for the Import Policy, stating that importers could bulk their imports in containers to economize on costs. However, the Tribunal noted that the import licence did not mention the container for non-returnable import, and para 131 referred to commercial containers provided by shipping agents, not second-hand containers like the one in question. Thus, the Tribunal upheld the lower authorities' decision to confiscate the container and impose the fine, rejecting the appeal. In a separate order by another member of the Tribunal, it was highlighted that the appellants were charged with contravening the provisions of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. The imported container was confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000 in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The legal provisions outlined in Section 3 of the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947, and Rule 3 of the Import (Control) Order, 1955, were discussed to emphasize that containers, being movable property, fall under the definition of 'goods' and require proper licensing for import. The Tribunal affirmed that containers like the one in question, if imported without the necessary licence, are considered prohibited goods, justifying the confiscation and fine imposed by the authorities. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the decision to confiscate the second-hand container imported along with the printing machine, emphasizing the necessity of proper licensing for all imported goods, including containers, under the relevant legal provisions. The appeal was dismissed, and the fine in lieu of confiscation was deemed valid under the Customs Act, 1962.
|
