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: (i) Whether the import of acetone was liable to confiscation on the basis of alleged non-compliance with the import notification and the hazardous chemicals rules; (ii) Whether a notification issued under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 could be treated as an order under Section 3(2) so as to attract Section 3(3) of that Act and Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Issue (i): Whether the import of acetone was liable to confiscation on the basis of alleged non-compliance with the import notification and the hazardous chemicals rules.
Analysis: The import had already been permitted and warehoused by the Customs authorities, and the notification relied on by the Revenue was issued only a short time before import. The record also showed compliance with Rule 18(2) of the Manufacture, Storage and Import of Hazardous Chemicals Rules, 1989. On these facts, the alleged breach was not shown to be deliberate, and the import could not be treated as warranting confiscation merely on that basis.
Conclusion: The alleged non-compliance did not justify confiscation.
Issue (ii): Whether a notification issued under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 could be treated as an order under Section 3(2) so as to attract Section 3(3) of that Act and Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
Analysis: Section 3(3) applies only where an order under Section 3(2) governs the goods, because only then are the goods deemed prohibited under Section 11 of the Customs Act, 1962. The notification in question was issued under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, not under Section 3(2). Therefore, the statutory deeming provision could not be invoked, and the foundation for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was absent.
Conclusion: The notification could not be treated as an order under Section 3(2), and the confiscation was unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The order of confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty was set aside, and the appeal succeeded with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992 applies only to goods covered by an order under Section 3(2), and a notification issued under Section 5 cannot, by itself, be treated as such an order for the purpose of deeming the goods prohibited under the Customs Act, 1962.
TaxTMI 
