9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of Methyl Parathion under the Customs Act, 1962. 2. Validity of Registration Certificate under the Insecticides Act, 1968. 3. Requirement of source of acquisition endorsement on Registration Certificate. 4. Authority of the Registration Committee to issue directives. 5. Compliance with statutory provisions for clearance of imported goods. Analysis: 1. The appeal challenged the confiscation of 36000 Kgs. of Methyl Parathion under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, along with a fine and penalty imposed by the Collector of Customs. The appellants imported the item covered under the Insecticides Act, 1968, holding a Registration Certificate. The dispute arose due to the lack of endorsement specifying the approved source of import on the Certificate, leading to a Show Cause Notice and subsequent confiscation. 2. The appellants argued that they possessed a valid Registration Certificate since 1973, as required by Section 9 of the Insecticides Act, 1968. They contended that the Act does not mandate declaring the source of acquisition on the Certificate. The appellants referenced provisions of the Act and previous communications from the Central Insecticide Board to support their position. 3. The Customs Authority relied on a letter from the Registration Committee directing not to permit import without the source of acquisition endorsement. The adjudicating authority upheld the confiscation based on this directive. However, the Tribunal found that there was no general instruction or notification requiring such an endorsement on Registration Certificates for import purposes. 4. The Tribunal analyzed the powers of the Registration Committee under the Insecticides Act, 1968, and noted that any variation in conditions of the Certificate should be duly notified to the certificate holder. The absence of evidence regarding prior notice to the appellants for endorsement and the timing of the directive raised doubts about its validity. 5. Ultimately, the Tribunal held that the Customs Authority's objection to clearance based on the lack of endorsement was unjustified. The Tribunal emphasized that the validity of the Certificate should be assessed at the time of clearance, and the mere directive from the Registration Committee, without proper compliance with statutory provisions, was insufficient to withhold clearance. The appeal was allowed, setting aside the impugned order for confiscation, and directing the Customs Authority to clear the goods if permissible for import.
|
