Tax Management India. Com
Law and Practice  :  Digital eBook
Research is most exciting & rewarding
  TMI - Tax Management India. Com
Follow us:
  Facebook   Twitter   Linkedin   Telegram

TMI Blog

Home

2014 (5) TMI 206

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... In view of this position, there is no misdeclaration in the description of the goods. Prohibition relating to import - Held that:- There is no prohibition under the Import Policy for the import of the said item is allowed to be imported freely - Letter of the Assistant Drug Controller, dated 27.7.2009, is based upon the assumption that the goods have been manufactured by the respondents - The fact is that the respondents have acted only as a trader in respect of the said goods and the goods were procured from another manufacturer as described earlier - The goods had come under ARE-1 – Therefore, It cannot be said that the goods have been manufactured without proper licence. Offence of manufacturer u/s 18(c) punishable u/s 27(ii) of .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... goods was without proper licence and the manufacturer has committed an offence under Section 18(c) punishable under Section 27(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. The case was adjudicated by the original authority and the goods were confiscated under Sections 111(d) and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the importer was given an option to redeem the goods on payment of fine, besides penalty under Section 112(a) was imposed. Penalty of Rs. 50,000/- was also imposed on Shri C.K. Bhat, Director of the company, under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The respondents filed appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), who allowed the appeal on the ground that Clorsulan and 4 Amino-6 (tri-chloroethyl)-1, 3-Benzene Di-sulphonamide are two .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ) and other provision of the Drugs Cosmetics Act, 1940 makes it evident that the goods which are prohibited for manufacture in India may not be allowed to be imported into India whether by way of re-import or otherwise. Section 10 of the Drugs Cosmetics Act, 1940 prohibits imports of drugs prohibited by Rules made under the Act. (iv) Rule 23 of the Drugs Cosmetics Rules, 1945 requires the importer to have a valid licence for import which the importer did not have. (v) is a settled position that in case of re-import also, the conditions imposed for normal imports should be satisfied. 3. The learned AR argued that there is a clear-cut misdeclaration as the goods have been declared as chemical while in reality the go .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... that they manufactured the said goods but they have traded the said goods. The learned Advocate further argued that the fact that the said drug is not prohibited for manufacture or sale in India. Rule 30-B of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules is not applicable and, therefore, the goods cannot be considered as prohibited for import in India. If at all there are any violations, they can at the most be considered the violations which should have been seen at the time of export or action could have been taken if someone has manufactured the particular drugs without the proper manufacturing licence. The issue in the present case is import of the goods in question. The said drug is not prohibited drug. The manufacture of this drug is not prohibited a .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ufactured without proper licence. It is also seen that another point mentioned was that the manufacture has committed an offence under Section 18(c) punishable under Section 27(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. First of all, as mentioned earlier, the Assistant Drug Controller's letter is based on the assumption that the goods have been manufactured by the respondents, which is not the case. Secondly, even if the manufacturer has committed an offence under Section 18(c) which is punishable under Section 27(ii) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940, this would not imply that the goods imported are prohibited goods and are, therefore, imported in violation of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. In view of the above position, I do not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

 

 

 

 

Quick Updates:Latest Updates