TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether mutilation of the imported plastic scrap could cure the import prohibition so as to avoid confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and whether any further redemption fine was warranted in addition to the penalty already paid.
Analysis: Mutilation permitted under section 24 of the Customs Act, 1962 affects classification and assessment, but does not determine the permissibility of import. If the goods were otherwise import-restricted and required a licence, failure to produce the licence was not cured by mutilation, and the goods remained liable to confiscation. At the same time, the absence of any deliberate contravention, the explanation that the goods were treated as scrap in the country of origin, and the fact that the goods had already been mutilated were relevant in considering the monetary consequences.
Conclusion: The goods were liable to confiscation in principle, but no further fine beyond the penalty already paid was called for.
Final Conclusion: The department's challenge failed, and the order dismissing the appeal was sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Mutilation under section 24 of the Customs Act, 1962 does not legalise an otherwise prohibited import or eliminate liability to confiscation; it bears only on classification and assessment.
TaxTMI 
