2015 (11) TMI 1091 - AT - Customs

Tribunal Upholds DGFT Notification on Import of 'Bronopol': Compliance Required

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, ruling that the appellant must comply with the DGFT notification dated 1.1.2015, requiring ... Whether the item ‘bronopol’ imported by the appellant requires permission as per DGFT notification dated 1.1.2015 - Import for non-insecticidal purpose - Held that:- In this case the appellant filed Bill of Entry on 8.4.2015 and claimed classification of goods under Chapter 29 and when the initial query was raised in EDI, after reply to the query, the Deputy Commissioner replied that the importers require permission as per DGFT Notification dated 1.1.2015. Against the communication, the appellants preferred appeal before Commissioner (Appeals). We find that the Commissioner (Appeals) in his order has clearly brought out that the item imported bronopol is covered under Schedule to the Insecticide Act as an insecticide. There is no dispute on the fact that the item is insecticide. - it is relevant to see that the goods were imported on 8.4.2015. Any import or export is covered by Foreign Trade Policy and any notification issued by DGFT. As per the above DGFT Notification, if any insecticide is imported even for non-insecticides purpose, the permission is necessary from the Registration Committee under Department of Agriculture and Co-operation. The notification is issued under section 3 of Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 read with Foreign Trade Policy 2009 - 2014 which is come into effect from 1.1.2015. Therefore, the customs and the importer is bound by this notification issued by DGFT. - appellants are required to comply with the DGFT notification dated 1.1.2015. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the impugned order is upheld - Decided against assessee. Issues:1. Requirement of permission for import of 'bronopol' as per DGFT notification dated 1.1.2015.Analysis:The appeal in this case was against the order passed by the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the import of 'bronopol' classified as an insecticide under the Insecticide Act, 1968. The Deputy Commissioner raised a query about the necessity of permission for import as per a DGFT notification. The appellant claimed exemption under section 38(b) of the Insecticide Act, stating the import was for non-insecticidal purpose. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the requirement of permission based on the DGFT notification. The appellant argued that the goods were freely importable under Chapter 29 and cited relevant case laws to support their position.The Revenue contended that 'bronopol' was an insecticide covered under the Insecticides Act and that the appellant, being a trader, did not provide evidence of non-insecticidal use. They emphasized the binding nature of the DGFT notification post its issuance on 1.1.2015. The Revenue highlighted that the appellant's reliance on pre-notification case laws was irrelevant due to the changed regulatory landscape.The Tribunal analyzed the case and the DGFT notification, emphasizing the requirement of permission for import even for non-insecticidal purposes as per the notification issued under the Foreign Trade Policy. The Tribunal noted the lack of evidence supporting the appellant's claim of non-insecticidal use and upheld the necessity of compliance with the DGFT notification. The Tribunal differentiated this case from precedents where confiscation or penalties were involved, concluding that the appellant must adhere to the notification's provisions. Ultimately, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal, affirming the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled that the appellant must comply with the DGFT notification dated 1.1.2015, requiring permission for the import of 'bronopol' even for non-insecticidal purposes. The decision was based on the regulatory framework post the notification's issuance, emphasizing the binding nature of such notifications on customs and importers. The Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner (Appeals)'s order and upheld the dismissal of the appellant's appeal.