9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (5) TMI 68X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mpliance of mandatory BIS standards, and the item under import does not figure in the list of exempted stainless steel grades. Therefore the goods under import need to be of BIS registered and since importer did not possess such a BIS registration certificate for the clearance, it appeared that the appellant has contravened the provisions of FT (DR) Act, 1992 read with the prohibitions imposed under the Steel and Steel Products (Quality Control) Order 2018). After due process of law, original authority passed an order directing absolute confiscation of the goods having assessable value of Rs. 10,47,107/-and also directing for safe destruction of the goods at the cost of the importer besides imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- under Section 112 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Coil of AISI 430 grade" were being imported by the appellant and used for the manufacture of Thermostat and steel pressed parts of motor-vehicles which in turn are being supplied to the manufacturers of automobiles such as Ford, Mahindra & Mahindra, Tata Motor and other OEMs. There isno dispute as regards the description of the goods or its quantity or the value declared by the appellants. The appellants filed Bill of Entry on 19.09.2018. The Bill of Lading is dated 01.09.2018. The Mill certificate is dated 24.08.2018. The invoice and packing list both are dated 23.08.2018. The country of origin certificate is dated 03.09.2018. The prohibition through steel control order was introduced with effect from 13.08.2018. The dates and events would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... which it is framed and it is not open to the adjudicating authority or the Tribunal (who are creatures of the statute) to stretch, modify or restrict the scope of this Section; they are bound by it. Hon'ble Supreme Court and High Courts can and do examine the validity of the laws and subordinate legislations and pass judgments annulling or modifying them by neither the officers nor the Tribunal, as creations of the statute cannot do so. This position has been explained clearly by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in UOI v. Kirloskar Pneumatics Company 1996 (84) E.L.T. 401 (S.C.) in which it was held as under : "According to these sub-sections, a claim for refund or an order of refund can be made only in accordance with the provisions of Section ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ower under Article 226 or the power of a Civil Court. No such delegation or conferment can ever be conceived. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the direction contained in Clause (3) of the impugned order is unsustainable in law." 12. We also find that not only Section 125 but no Section of the Customs Act, 1962 gives any officer the power to compel anyone to import or export or re-export. This Section also does not give the Adjudicating Authority the right to give a conditional redemption saying "you can redeem only if you agree to re-export". In case of prohibited goods the adjudicating authority has only two options : (a) to allow redemption on payment of fine; or (b) to not allow redemption. 13. In view of the above, we ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
