9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 326X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... war prone area – It is observed that pre-shipment inspection agency did not carry out their job properly for which appellant cannot be held responsible – There is no evidence on record to hold that appellant was aware that waste and scrap imported by them contained live bomb shells – There is no justification for confiscation of waste and scraps (other than live Bomb Shells) imported by appellant and accordingly, no penalties upon appellant under Section 112 of Customs Act, 1962 can be imposed – Accordingly redemption fine and penalty are set aside however, live bomb shells imported alongwith above melting waste and scraps are required to be absolutely confiscated – Decided in favour of Assesse. - Appeal No : C/11895/2014 - Order No. A/106 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai 2002 (149) E.L.T. 1144 (Tri. - Mumbai). He also relied upon the case law of AIA Engineering Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Customs, Ahmedabad 2011 (274) E.L.T. 470 (Tri. - Ahmd.) to make home point that in similar situation it was held that pre-shipment inspection certificate from the authorized agency was produced by the appellant and that no malafied intention can be adjudicated on the part of the appellant and confiscation of goods, and imposition of penalties, upon the appellant are required to be set-aside. 3. Shri J. Nair, (AR) appearing on behalf of the Revenue, relied upon the case law of Savitri Con-Cast Ltd. vs. Commr. of Cus. (Preventive), Jamnagar 2006 (205) E.L.T 1085 (Tri. Mumbai) whereby the red ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ctive articles etc. Appellant fulfilled these requirements. Further the consignments as per the documents were originating from U.K., which is not a war prone area. It is observed that the pre-shipment inspection agency M/s. Sandeep Garg Company did not carry out their job properly for which appellant cannot be held responsible. There is no evidence on record to hold that the appellant was aware that the waste and scrap imported by them contained live bomb shells. The extent of precautions required to be taken has been discussed in para 6 of the case law ITC Global Holding vs. Commr. of Cus. Mumbai (supra) is reproduced below:- Mukand Ltd. had contended before him that one of the clauses in the sales contract provided that the goods w ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... that it can be blamed for the presence of these explosives. As we have noted the Commissioner repeatedly knowledges any absence of motive. He has also not said what precaution could have been taken by the importer. (If the suggestion that the importer should have been done. It is falsify to think of that suggestion. It is not practicable to think for any importer to examine the scrap and other material that it imports.) The importer had asked for inspection of the consignment by Lloyds, which the Commissioner accepts to be internationally reputed. The fact that the consignment was inspected not by Lloyds has passed on the task, is not by itself sufficient to conclude that Mukand Ltd. is guilty of acts or omissions which render it liable to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
