9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 447X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oods but despite that the same was permitted to be re-exported - Admittedly the imported goods involved herein is restricted. The prior clearance of import and also the license to import have not been taken from the authorities concern, which was incumbent upon the appellant to take beforehand i.e. before the import took place. Re-export of goods - HELD THAT:- Although there is some irregularity on the part of the appellant but looking at the facts of this case and background of the appellant herein who has imported the goods involved herein not for any commercial purpose but only for the purpose of static display in his clinic, the re-export of aforesaid good is permitted as held in M/S. GLOBAL ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUST ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nned Aerial Vehicle (UAVs)/ Remote Piloted Aircrafts (RPAs)/ drones which are classifiable under CTH8802 are restricted requiring prior clearance from the Directorate General of Civil Aviation (DGCA) except for category (a) to (i) listed in the policy and as per DGFT notification No. 16/2025-2020, dated 27.07.2016 import license is required from DGFT and also to obtain NOC from DGCA before releasing the goods as the goods in question are not freely importable through courier in personal name. Since the appellant (Consignee) did not fall in the exception as mentioned in category of the policy condition (a) to (i) and failed to produce import license and DGCA NOC, the consignment was sized under seizure memo dated 02.02.2021 and culminated in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fore, I am dealing with this issue only. I have gone through the decision of this Tribunal in the matter of Global Enterprises (supra) in which although the imported goods were termed as prohibited goods but despite that the same was permitted to be re-exported and. The relevant paragraphs of the said decision are extracted as under:- xxx xxx xxx 6. As the imported goods, though required to be are not complaint with the standards, they fail to overcome the bar of prohibition at the threshold. Hence the question of duty liability, differential or otherwise, will no arise. This is in conformity with the decision of the Hon ble Supreme Court in re Sewpujanrai Indrasanarai Ltd. That requirement to discharge duty liabil ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... osed of accordingly. 5. Admittedly the imported goods involved herein is restricted. The prior clearance of import and also the license to import have not been taken from the authorities concern, which was incumbent upon the appellant to take beforehand i.e. before the import took place. 6. So far as the issue of the re-export is concerned, although there is some irregularity on the part of the appellant but looking at the facts of this case and background of the appellant herein who has imported the goods involved herein not for any commercial purpose but only for the purpose of static display in his clinic, I am inclined to permit re-export of aforesaid good as held in the decision cited (supra). So far as personal penalty on the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
