9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved:
1. Whether the impugned goods were imported legally into the country. Analysis: 1. The judgment involves five appeals stemming from a common order passed by the Collector of Customs (Judicial) concerning the legality of imported goods. 2. The first two items, Cardiac Monitor Part No. 210-251-070 and Cardiac Monitor Unit, were not owned by Mohinder Hospital & Medical Research Centre (MHMRC) but were given for demonstration purposes. The Adjudicating Authority concluded that MHMRC had no role in the importation, absolving them from penalties. 3. The Central Unit Cardiac Monitor, although imported under a different model number than declared, was deemed freely importable, and no penalty was imposed due to the lack of guilty knowledge or major offense. 4. Concerning items at Serial Nos. 4 & 5, the Appellants were considered bona fide purchasers and not aware of any taint on the goods, leading to the conclusion that they were not liable for confiscation or penalties. 5. The Drill Machine at Serial No. 7 was purchased locally, and the lack of evidence for confiscation or penalties was highlighted. 6. The Department argued that some goods were imported in violation of regulations, but the burden of proof was on them to establish unlawful importation, which was not substantiated. 7. The judgment emphasized that without clear evidence of removal without permission, goods cannot be confiscated under Section 111(j) of the Customs Act. 8. The Central Unit Cardiac Monitor's confiscation was upheld due to discrepancies in the model number, but the redemption fine and penalty were reduced considering the import was allowable under Open General License (OGL). 9. Ultimately, the judgment set aside confiscations and penalties for certain items, reduced fines and penalties for others, based on the lack of evidence supporting illegal importation in most cases.
|
