9911796707
TMI Blog2005 (12) TMI 319X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods and sought its clearance without import licence. The shipment had been made on 1-8-2004 and the relevant Bill of Entry was filed on 9-9-2004. The Customs authorities, after examination of the goods and consideration of the report of the Chartered Engineer, came to the conclusion that the goods were more than 10 years old and hence ought to have been imported only under a specific licence as required under para 2.17 of the Exim Policy 2002-2007. The import was found to have been made in contravention of the Exim Policy and the goods were also found to have been grossly undervalued. Accordingly, the goods were sought to be confiscated under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (D R) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... any licence. Thus the goods in question were found to have been imported without contravening any provision in/under the Customs Act. Hence the order setting aside the confiscation and penalty. This order of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) is presently under challenge in the present appeal. 3. The learned Jt. CDR submits that the date which is relevant to the question whether any import of goods contravened the provisions of the import policy is the date of shipment of the goods in so far as Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 is concerned. This argument is contested by the learned Counsel for the respondents, who submits that what appears from the text of clause (d) of Section 111 is that the date on which the goods entered the Indi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le to confiscation. The Bill of Entry was filed on 9-9-2004. Learned Counsel has submitted that the goods reached the Indian customs waters a couple of days back. It, thus, would appear that the events mentioned at (a) and (c) above happened after 1-9-2004, i.e. the date on which the new policy came into force. However, the contentious issue in this case is in relation to (b) above. The question is whether the goods were attempted to be imported prior to 1-9-2004. Admittedly, the goods were supplied by a foreign company acting upon a purchase order placed on them by the importer. The goods were shipped on 1-8-2004. The immediate question is whether the shipment of the goods by the supplier acting on the importer s purchase order would const ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
