9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Warehousing of goods without import license. 2. Confiscation of goods for want of license. 3. Interpretation of saving clause 11(c)(1) of the Import (Control) Order, 1955. 4. Application of Notification 10/93 for deposit of goods in a bonded warehouse. 5. Liability to confiscation of goods despite substantial value addition and foreign exchange earning. Analysis: 1. The case involved the warehousing of goods without an import license. The respondent had imported goods for assembling machinery to be exported, with some goods stored in a Customs bonded warehouse. The Additional Collector allowed the goods to be kept in the warehouse but later held them liable for confiscation due to the absence of a license. The importer appealed this decision, arguing that the goods were in transit to China and fell under a saving clause of the Import (Control) Order, 1955. 2. The Collector (Appeals) overturned the confiscation order, stating that no import license was required as the goods were in transit. The Notification 10/93 permitted the deposit of goods in a bonded warehouse without advance duty payment. The appeal was made challenging the Collector (Appeals) decision, claiming that the warehousing was subject to producing an import license, which was not fulfilled. 3. The contention raised was that the goods did not fall under the saving clause for goods in transit and were not manifested as such. However, the Additional Collector's order allowed warehousing based on the conditions specified in Notification 10/93, which included goods meant for re-export without duty payment. The appeal challenging this basis failed as the goods were intended for re-export. 4. Despite the argument that the goods should be liable for confiscation due to the lack of an import license, the Tribunal considered the substantial value addition and foreign exchange earning from the machinery assembly process. The imported components were assembled into machinery for export, resulting in significant foreign exchange earnings. Therefore, the Tribunal justified the re-export of goods without imposing any fine, even though technically they could be confiscated for importing without a license. 5. In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal and upheld the Collector (Appeals) decision, allowing the re-export of goods without payment of duty or fine due to the substantial value addition and foreign exchange earning. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering the overall circumstances and economic benefits in cases of technical violations such as importing goods without a license.
|
