TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Tribunal grants appeal in detrusitol case, emphasizing discretionary power under Drugs & Cosmetics Rules</h1> <h3>Pfizer Products India Pvt. Ltd. Versus Commissioner of Customs (Import) ACC, Mumbai</h3> The tribunal allowed the appeal against the order confiscating imported detrusitol SR Caps due to shelf-life issues. Despite the goods having slightly ... Confiscation - Re-export - Penalty - Held that: - the medicines had a residual shelf life that was below the threshold prescribed in the proviso to Rule 31 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 - the goods have already been sent out of the country and that the goods did meet the norms at the time of shipment - Appeal allowed Issues:- Appeal against order confiscating imported goods- Shelf-life of imported detrusitol SR Caps- Invocation of section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962- Exercise of discretion by licensing authority under Rule 31 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945- Request for re-shipment of goodsAnalysis:The appeal was filed against the order confiscating the imported detrusitol SR Caps due to having less than 60% of its shelf-life remaining at the time of import. The lower authorities invoked section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, leading to the confiscation and imposition of penalties. The appellant argued that the medicine had a shelf-life above 60% at the time of shipment and relied on previous cases to support their position.The tribunal noted that the goods were redeemed and re-exported by the appellant. While the shelf-life was indeed below the prescribed threshold, it was only marginally so. Rule 31 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, provides the licensing authority with discretion to allow imports even below the threshold, which was not exercised in this case. The competent authority had the power to permit such imports, and the goods met the norms at the time of shipment.Considering the circumstances and the fact that the goods were already sent out of the country, the tribunal found that the confiscation under section 111 and the penalty under section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962, were not entirely necessary. The importer had also requested re-shipment while the goods were in custody before clearance. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the confiscation under section 111 and the penalty under section 112, ultimately allowing the appeal filed by the appellant.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
