9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 389 - AT - CustomsConfiscation - redemption fine - penalty - import of restricted item without required license - 20MM Used Tyre Rubber Shreds - HELD THAT - There is no dispute about the dates that the goods were shipped under Bill of Lading dated 04.08.2016. Bill of Entry on arrival of the goods was filed on 08.09.2017. At the time of filling of Bill of Entry the appellant was in possession of license issued by DGFT - at the time of import the appellant should possess a valid license, if it is required as per the policy. In the present case though the Bill of Entry date is 08.09.2017 but it is not coming out from the documents that what is the date of import of the goods. When the goods enter into territorial water of India that is the stage of completion of import into India and not the date of filling of Bill of Entry, therefore, if the appellant possess the license on or before date of import, the goods imported are covered by the license and same will not be liable for confiscation. Though in the policy the date of reckoning the import is given is as per the date of Bill of Lading but the import gets completed only when goods enters into India. Therefore, the contention of the lower authorities that the appellant was not possessing the license on the date of Bill of Lading is not correct. However, to finally decide the issue, the date import is very relevant which is not available on record. Matter remanded to the adjudicating authority for passing a fresh order after verifying the date of import - appeal allowed by way of remand.
Issues:
1. Import of restricted item without a license. 2. Confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties. 3. Interpretation of the date of import for licensing requirements. Analysis: 1. The case involved the import of "20MM Used Tyre Rubber Shreds" without the required license, which was a restricted item under CTH 40040000. The goods were assessed during the second check, revealing the lack of the necessary license issued by the DGFT for such imports. Consequently, the adjudicating authority confiscated the goods with an option for redemption upon payment of a fine and imposed a penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. 2. The appellant challenged the Order-In-Original by filing an appeal before the Commissioner (appeals), who upheld the decision of the adjudicating authority. The appellant argued that they possessed the required license at the time of filing the Bill of Entry, despite the Bill of Lading date preceding the issuance of the license. The appellant relied on various judgments to support their claim. 3. The Hon'ble Member (Judicial) analyzed the case and emphasized the importance of possessing a valid license at the time of import, as per the relevant policy requirements. The definition of import under the Customs Act was considered, highlighting that the completion of import occurs when goods enter the territorial waters of India, not necessarily at the time of filing the Bill of Entry. The Member clarified that the date of import is crucial for determining the applicability of the license, which was not evident from the available records. 4. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the adjudicating authority for a fresh decision after verifying the actual date of import. The decision was based on the understanding that possession of a valid license at the time of import is essential to avoid confiscation of goods, regardless of the date of filing the Bill of Entry. The appeal was allowed for further consideration based on the clarification provided regarding the date of import. 5. The judgment, delivered by Hon'ble Member (Judicial) Mr. Ramesh Nair, provided a detailed analysis of the issues surrounding the import of restricted items without the required license, the confiscation of goods, and the interpretation of the date of import in relation to licensing obligations under the Customs Act, 1962.
|
