9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Excess weight of imported goods. 2. Validity of the import license. 3. Confiscation of excess quantity. 4. Penalty imposition. Analysis: Issue 1: Excess Weight of Imported Goods The appellants imported marble blocks/slabs with excess weight, triggering a thorough examination due to suspicions of clandestine clearance. The Customs found an excess of 23.735 MTs of blocks and 56.05 Sq. Mts of slabs. Samples confirmed the goods as marble. The importers and Custom House Agents were investigated. A show cause notice was issued for confiscation under Sec. 111(m) & 111(d) of the Act, along with duty demand and penalty allegations. Issue 2: Validity of the Import License Post-show cause notice, importers presented a transferred advance license, which the Commissioner deemed genuine but insufficient to cover the goods. The Commissioner's order confiscated declared goods and excess quantity, imposing fines and penalties. The appeal challenged this order based on interpretation of DGFT circulars and license validity. Issue 3: Confiscation of Excess Quantity The Commissioner's decision to confiscate the excess quantity was challenged, arguing that Customs historically condoned marginal excess in marble trade. Detailed analysis of circulars and license conditions was conducted. The Tribunal found the transferred license capable of covering the goods, overturning the Commissioner's confiscation order partially. Issue 4: Penalty Imposition The Commissioner imposed penalties on the importers, which were contested based on license interpretation and historical practices in the marble trade. The Tribunal remitted the penalties, upheld confiscation of certain slabs not covered by the license, and set fines for redemption of confiscated goods. In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside the confiscation of excess marble blocks and slabs, upheld confiscation of certain slabs, remitted penalties, and provided relief based on detailed analysis of license validity, historical practices, and Customs procedures.
|
