9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (1) TMI 1693X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he order under appeal, the Tribunal has noted that Clause 7 of the contract provided for pre-shipment inspection of the imported goods. As it was open to the appellant to inspect the goods, before they were exported to India (prior to shipment), he could not absolve himself of blame and claim to be unaware that the shipment contained used plastic of a considerable quantity. An appeal to the High Court is available, under Section 130 of the Customs Act, only if the case involves a substantial question of law. The Tribunal is the final Court of fact, and it is only if such findings are either perverse or are based on no evidence, would they give rise to a substantial question of law warranting interference in proceedings under Section 130 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r waste consignment, was neither declared by the appellant in the Bill of Entry, nor did they submit any licence issued by the office of the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT) for import of plastic waste. A representative sample, of the plastic content, was drawn in the presence of the authorized representative of the CHA and sent to the Central Institute of Plastic Engineering Technology, Lucknow (CIPET) for testing; the subject goods were seized on 12-9-2006, under the Customs Act, on the ground that the goods were liable for confiscation as the import of waste plastic of the kind was regulated in the manner provided in the Public Notice No. 392(PN) 92-97 dated 1-1-1997 issued by DGFT; and the appellant was not able to show tha ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... port quality inspection on seller s account by survey or as mutually agreed upon; the contract stipulated for pre-shipment inspection, of the goods imported, to ascertain whether they were as per the declaration in the Bill of Entry; consequently, the appellants could not fully absolve themselves of responsibility to ensure that the goods imported were as per their declaration in the Bill of Entry; and there was no infirmity in the earlier order passed on 10-12-2007. Both the appellate order and the primary order dated 11-5-2007 were upheld. 6. Before us, Mr. Rahul Consul, Learned Counsel for the appellant, would submit that, it is only if it is established that the appellant intended to import goods without obtaining necessary per ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Consul, Learned Counsel for the appellant, that it is the exporter who is responsible, and the appellant who had imported the goods bona fide cannot be subjected to fine and penalty, as he was unaware that the goods imported by him also contained used plastic, is not tenable. In the order under appeal, the Tribunal has noted that Clause 7 of the contract provided for pre-shipment inspection of the imported goods. As it was open to the appellant to inspect the goods, before they were exported to India (prior to shipment), he could not absolve himself of blame and claim to be unaware that the shipment contained used plastic of a considerable quantity. 10. An appeal to the High Court is available, under Section 130 of the Customs Act, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
