9911796707
TMI Blog2011 (4) TMI 228X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ice and annexing requisite document. The appellant also produced a pre-inspection certificate issued by M/s Alex Stewart International (Aust) Pty. Ltd., Australia. The said Bill of Entry was assessed and examination of the cargo was conducted on 28.4.07. The out-of-charge of order was passed and the appellant took delivery of the 4 containers and brought the same to their factory. However, admittedly, on de-stuffing the 3 containers, the appellant noticed that the metallic scrap imported by them also contained used arms and ammunitions. Thereafter, they themselves informed the officers of Customs (ICD) Sabarmati, in the late evening of 4.5.2007 about the presence of war material in the consignment of waste and scrap by them. 2. As a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... l imported by them were required to be examined in full at their premises. In fact, it was they themselves, who deducted presence of war material in the consignment and informed Revenue. They submitted that the balance 240.202 MTs of scrap does not contain any objectionable material and as such, there can be no justification for confiscation of the same. They also submitted that procedure prescribed in Circular No.56/2004-Cus, dt.18.10.07 and No.60/2004-Cus, dt.26.10.07 prescribed pre-inspection certificate by one of the agencies as recognized and authorized by DGFT. This requirement stand satisfied by them inasmuch as they have produced a certificate from one of the specified agencies. As such, they cannot be held guilty for suppression or ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... said goods along with other waste and scrap has to be confiscated. ld.Advocate has drawn our attention to the various decisions of the Tribunal, wherein in absence of any knowledge on the part of the importer about presence of objectionable war material in the consignment of waste and scrap, confiscation of the balance goods was set aside and it was held that the importers cannot be held liable for imposition of penalties for failure of inspection agencies. Reliance stand placed by the ld.Advocate on the following decisions of the Tribunal. i) 2009 (243) ELT 615 (Tri-Del) M/s Global Marine Agencies Vs. CC, Jaipur ii) 2006 (203) ELT 55 (Tri-Del) CC(ICD), New Delhi Vs. M/s Valley Iron & Steel Co.Ltd. iii) 2010 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... served that absence of knowledge on the part of the importer as regards presence of war material in the imported consignment would not invite confiscation of the balance quantity of waste and scrap or imposition of penalty upon the importer. In the case of M/s Global Marine Agencies referred supra, it was observed that if the inspection agency, who has given certificate, has not done their work properly, it is for the DGFT authority to take an appropriate action as per law against the inspection agency, including cancellation of power of inspection given to them. 9. Inasmuch as in all above matters, consignment in question confiscated by the authorities stand set aside, we, by following the ratio of the above decisions, set aside th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
