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%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether the reduction of redemption fine and penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) called for interference in the Revenue's appeal.
Analysis: The imported goods were correctly declared and were not found to involve misdeclaration. Import licence requirements under Rule 23 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 were not fulfilled, and the goods were therefore liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the importer's inability to obtain the drug import licence, the consequent request for re-export, and the absence of any deliberate attempt or mala fide conduct were accepted. The Revenue did not rebut the finding that there was no mala fide on the part of the importer, and no valid ground was shown for enhancement of the redemption fine and penalty.
Conclusion: The reduction of redemption fine and penalty was upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed.
Final Conclusion: The impugned order granting re-export and reducing the monetary consequences was sustained, and the Revenue obtained no relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are correctly declared and the importer is unable to secure the requisite licence without any mala fide intent, reduction of redemption fine and penalty will not be interfered with in the absence of a contrary showing by the Revenue.