9911796707
TMI Blog2017 (2) TMI 293X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... -Original only contested a part of the description where it is claimed that it is re-import of exported goods. If the goods are not re-imported, Section 111(m) is attracted. However, the goods contain two stickers and one of them matches in batch number with the export goods. The other also differs marginally and could be, possibly, a result of clerical error - invocation of Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 not correct. Penalties set aside - appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant. - C/85815/16 - A/85386/17/SMB - Dated:- 16-1-2017 - Shri Raju, Member (Technical) Shri Ankit Shah, Advocate for Appellant Shri V.R. Reddy, AC (AR) for Respondent ORDER Per Raju The appellant M/s Lupin Ltd. had exported ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ointed out that when the said goods were returned after rejection from the buyer, the said drums also contained another sticker with Batch No. 119040006 and 119040007. He had pointed out that this is as only ground, on the basis of which, the Additional Commissioner has stated that the goods imported are not the same goods which were exported. Learned Counsel pointed out that the original examination report of the Appraiser being on the back of the Bill of Entry clearly points out as follows: - Please refer N.S. P-X. As directed goods examined w.r. to S/B No. 8158250 dated 24.3.2012. Goods examined in presence of AO/Shed and AC/Shed. Description goods found as Amlodipine Besilate JP as against description on Export S/B invoice Amlodi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... to the Government /approved laboratories. (ii) In case the re-imported material is found to be NSQ, then based on the under taking of the manufacturer, the consignment may be released for reprocessing provided it shall be done in the presence of the Drugs Inspectors or representative of Port Office. The decision of release for reprocessing or not to release shall be taken by the concerned DDC (I). Simultaneously, the matter to be informed to the concerned State Drug Controller / Zonal Officer for the re-import check. He argued that in these circumstances, since destruction goods have been ordered, they have no quarrel with that part of order, however, he argued that the penalty of ₹ 47 lakhs is excessive and has been wrongly ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cribed the nature of imported goods as non-standard quality drugs and thus the import of the rejected goods cannot be considered to be prohibited in the country attracting Section 111(d) especially when the said goods have been declared to be so. The description of goods given in the Bill of Entry is not incorrect. The Order-in-Original only contested a part of the description where it is claimed that it is re-import of exported goods. 5. I find that if the goods are not re-imported, Section 111(m) is attracted. However, the goods contain two stickers and one of them matches in batch number with the export goods. The other also differs marginally and could be, possibly, a result of clerical error. In these circumstances, I do not find su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
