9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Confiscation of second-hand machines imported without a valid import license - Imposition of redemption fine and personal penalty Confiscation of Second-hand Machines: The appellant imported second-hand machines under the Open General Licence (OGL) but faced confiscation as authorities claimed a valid import license was required at the time of importation. The appellant was given the option to redeem the machines by paying a fine of Rs. 80,000. The appellant's argument was that before April 1, 1999, second-hand machinery was importable under OGL, and they had completed all import formalities before the restriction on second-hand capital goods was imposed. The appellant referred to a circular allowing importers who had initiated import steps before March 31, 1999, to proceed even without meeting new guidelines. Despite the goods being shipped on April 12, 1999, the appellant contended that all formalities were completed before the licensing restrictions came into effect. Imposition of Redemption Fine and Personal Penalty: The Revenue argued that the actual shipment date, April 12, 1999, should determine the need for a license, citing a tribunal decision emphasizing the date of shipment for license requirement assessment. The Tribunal acknowledged that while the goods were shipped after the licensing restriction, the import process had begun before the deadline. The Tribunal noted that the date on the bill of lading signifies the start of goods transit, following Supreme Court precedents. Consequently, the goods were considered imported without a valid license, leading to confiscation. However, considering the steps taken before March 31, 1999, the redemption fine was reduced from Rs. 80,000 to Rs. 20,000. The Tribunal also revoked the personal penalty, attributing the non-compliance to sudden licensing changes rather than intentional misconduct. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the second-hand machines due to the lack of a valid import license at the time of importation. However, recognizing the steps taken before the licensing restriction, the redemption fine was reduced, and the personal penalty was set aside. The judgment highlighted the importance of the actual shipment date in determining the need for a license and considered the circumstances leading to the non-compliance with the licensing regulations.
|
