9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2014 (4) TMI 514 - AT - CustomsDuty demand - Redemption fine - CBEC Circular No.56/2004-Cus dt. 18.10.2004 & 450/108/2004-Cus-IV dt. 15.09.2005 - Genuineness of preshipment inspection certificate doubted - Held that - Preshipment inspection certificate was issued by an agency which was prescribed by the competent authority. The said certificate was given to the appellant by the original importer who sold the goods to the appellant on high sea sales basis. It is not the case of the revenue that appellant was instrumental in arranging a forged preshipment inspection certificate. Revenue was also aware of the doubtful nature of such certificate and would have done 100% examination of M.S. Scrap before allowing provisional clearance to ensure that the imported cargo does not contain any arms or ammunitions related material etc. Even if the preshipment inspection certificate produced by the appellant could be held to the non-production of preshipment inspection certificate then also 100% examination could be done - Following decision of Madhu Sudan Metals Vs. Commissioner of Cus. (Import), Nhava Sheva (2011 (3) TMI 233 - CESTAT, MUMBAI) and Commissioner of Customs Vs. Senor Metals Pvt. Ltd. 2008 (8) TMI 238 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT - Decided in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Validity of preshipment inspection certificate 2. Confiscation and penalty imposition 3. Applicability of case laws Issue 1: Validity of preshipment inspection certificate The appellant filed an appeal against an order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Kandla, regarding the genuineness of a preshipment inspection certificate for M.S. Scrap. The appellant claimed the certificate was provided by the high sea seller and argued that no arms or ammunitions were present in the imported goods. The Revenue doubted the certificate's authenticity as the issuing agency did not cooperate in verification. The appellant's advocate cited case laws to support the argument against confiscation/penalty. Issue 2: Confiscation and penalty imposition The Revenue defended the order, stating that the preshipment inspection certificate was not genuine, violating import/export policies. The agency issuing the certificate was delisted, and the Revenue relied on a relevant case law. The Tribunal examined the case records, acknowledging the certificate was from a prescribed agency and provided by the original importer. The Tribunal noted that even if the certificate was deemed non-produced, 100% examination could have been conducted, as per a Gujarat High Court judgment. Issue 3: Applicability of case laws After considering arguments from both sides, the Tribunal found no justification for confiscation and penalty imposition. It referenced a Gujarat High Court judgment to support its decision, emphasizing that the case law relied upon by the Revenue was not applicable to the present case. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the adjudicating authority's order and providing consequential relief to the appellant. This judgment highlights the importance of the genuineness of preshipment inspection certificates, the authority's duty to conduct thorough examinations, and the relevance of precedent judgments in customs cases. The decision underscores the need for compliance with import/export policies and the significance of legal precedents in determining confiscation and penalty in such matters.
|
