9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (6) TMI 546X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in conformity with the laws of their respective countries. Framing laws is the sovereign right of the state and this is not subservient to any contract between two businesses - The appellant did nothing but went ahead with inflicting the goods under a bill of lading with the port of discharge as Nhava Sheva and final destination as ICD Garhi, Harsaru. This only establishes that either the appellant was negligent or otherwise decided to import the goods in violation of the law. Whether the Nhava Sheva can be considered the port of import in this case or the ICD Garhi, Harsaru? - HELD THAT:- The port of import is the port where the Bill of Entry is filed to clear the goods. It is a well settled matter that until the goods cross the customs frontiers they are supposed to be in the course of international trade. In this case, the port of import is ICD Garhi, Harsaru, through which the impugned goods could not have been imported in terms of the DGFT notification. The appellant imported in violation of the notification. Private contracts are always subject to public policy and laws and if in terms of the changed law the performance under the contract becomes impossible, the contr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a no objection certificate dated 10.03.2016 from the Rubber Board as called for by the appraiser. 4. It was pointed out by the officers to the appellant that in terms of the EXIM policy as notified by DGFT notification dated 20.01.2016, the consignment of rubber could only be imported through Chennai or Nhava Sheva ports and not through ICD Garhi, Harsaru, India. The appellant submitted a letter dated 10.03.2016 waiving the issue of show cause notice and requesting for a personal hearing before the adjudicating authority. Accordingly a personal hearing was held on 11.03.2016 by the Joint Commissioner which was attended to by the appellant and an order in original dated 31.03.2016 was passed. The appellant had also deposited a redemption fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- and Rs.50,000/- as penalty by challan dated 15.03.2016. The operative part of the order in original was as follows: a) I confiscate the goods imported under Bill of Entry No. 4422959 DATED 02.03.2016 having total assessable value of Rs. 17,47,951/- (Rupees Seventeen Lakhs Forty Seven Thousand Nine Hundred Fifty One Only) under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act 1962. However, I give an option to the Importer to redeem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t has always been bonafide. 6. It was therefore, prayed that the impugned order may be set aside and the appeal may be allowed. 7. Learned Authorised Representative supports the impugned order and argues that it calls for no interference as the appellant had clearly and apparently imported natural rubber in violation of DGFT notification dated 20.01.2016. He submits that the port of import is the airport, land custom station, ICD etc. from where the goods are cleared by the importer. There cannot be two ports of import. It is a well settled legal position that the import is complete only when goods cross the customs frontiers. In this case, this happened at ICD Garhi Harsaru and not at Nhava Sheva. Before reaching the ICD the goods have to be discharged at some port and carried to the ICD and this does not make the port of discharge the port of import. The ICD is the dry port through which the goods are imported. In this case, it was Garhi, Harsaru and not Nhava Sheva. The appellant has clearly imported the goods in violation of DGFT notification and therefore the impugned order is correct and proper and calls for no interference. 8. We have considered the arguments and su ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mported in terms of the DGFT notification. The appellant imported in violation of the notification. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant also argued that the adjudication order cannot be sustained because no show cause notice was issued to the appellant. This submission cannot be accepted because appellant itself mentioned in paragraph 8 of the appeal that had submitted a letter on 10.03.2016 waiving the show cause notice and requesting for personal hearing and that the Joint Commissioner held a personal hearing on 11.03.2016 which was attended to by the appellant. The appellant cannot blow hot and blow cold at the same time. It cannot waive the show cause notice in writing to expedite the process of clearance and thereafter complain that the no show cause notice was issued to it. 12. Another submission by the appellant is that the import consignment was a transitional arrangement as the contract was signed on 12.01.2016 before the issue of the notification and therefore the provision of notification is not applicable for this consignment. This submission cannot be accepted. The private contracts between parties cannot prevail over public policy and public law. If there is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
