9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported goods and penalty imposition based on Import Policy violation. 2. Interpretation of Paragraph 94 of the Import Policy regarding import of goods by export-oriented units. 3. Justification for not taking imported goods to the export processing zone for manufacturing. Analysis: 1. The case involved the appellant importing parts of a blinker lantern, which were deemed consumer goods under the Import Policy, requiring a specific license for import. The Commissioner ordered confiscation of the goods with an option for redemption on payment of a fine and imposed a penalty on the importer. 2. The appellant argued that the imported goods were intended for conversion into electronic lanterns at their factory in the export processing zone for export, thus falling under the provisions of Paragraph 94 of the Import Policy. Paragraph 94 allowed duty-free import of goods for manufacturing, production, or processing by export-oriented units, subject to certain conditions. The negative list of imports included restricted items like consumer goods, which could be imported with a license. 3. Despite the appellant's explanation of delays by the custom house leading to the cancellation of export orders, the goods were not taken to the export processing zone for manufacturing as intended. The Commissioner found that the goods were sold in the open market instead of being used for the specified purpose. While acknowledging the delays, the tribunal could not accept the claim that the goods were entitled to the benefits of Paragraph 94 of the Policy. 4. The tribunal noted that the appellant had made the claim for Paragraph 94 benefits in a letter, but due to the failure to fulfill the intended purpose of taking the goods to the export processing zone, the confiscation of goods was confirmed. However, considering the circumstances, the penalty imposed on the appellant was set aside, and the redemption fine was reduced from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 2.5 lakhs. In conclusion, the tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods due to the failure to utilize them as intended under the Import Policy but showed leniency by reducing the redemption fine while setting aside the penalty.
|
