9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1571X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... appellant was 'PRODOTTO NW 775058 (Special Boiling Point Sprit for footwear industry)', Revenue entertained a view that the said item was restricted for import and cannot be permitted to be cleared. The fact of the item being restricted item in terms of para 2.20 of the Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2015-20, was brought to the notice of the importers, in response to which they clarified that they were not aware of the said import of the goods being restricted and they have imported the same inadvertently and mistakenly. They accordingly made a request for allowing them to re-export the items. 2. In the above background, proceedings were initiated against them which stand adjudicated by the Commissioner vide his impugned order allowing the re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the Revenue draws my attention to the findings of the Adjudicating Authority wherein reference stands made to para 2.20 of the Foreign Trade Policy which allows import of said goods only through State Trading Enterprises. As such he submits that the appellant was not allowed to import the items in question. 5. After carefully considering the submissions made by both the sides, I find that para 2.20 of the Foreign Trade Policy allows import of the goods only through State Trading Enterprises. Sub-para c of the same is to the effect that - "DGFT may, however, grant an authorization to any other person to import or export any of the goods notified for exclusive trading through STEs". As such it is clarified that even the grant of authorizat ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... with the correct Tariff Item. The goods stand imported for their own actual use for the manufacture of their final product and the value of the goods is only to the extent of around Rs. 40,000/-. The appellants have categorically submitted that they were not aware of such restriction and as such there was no mala-fide on their part neither was there any suppression or misstatement, in which case imposition of penalty upon them is not justifiable. I agree with the above contentions of the appellant. It is not the Revenue's case that the appellant had tried to import the restricted items by mis-declaring their description or there was any mala-fide on their part. The value of the goods is only to the extent of 40,000 and the same were import ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
