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>Importers' Appeals Upheld for Confiscated Cars Over Certificate Non-Compliance</h1> <h3>COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ICD, TKD, NEW DELHI Versus JS. GUJRAL</h3> COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, ICD, TKD, NEW DELHI Versus JS. GUJRAL - 2009 (235) E.L.T. 414 (Del.) Issues:Confiscation of imported cars under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 due to non-compliance with Import Licensing Notes of Chapter 87 para (7) regarding Type Approval Certificate/COP from accredited agencies.Analysis:The judgment pertains to appeals under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 challenging the confiscation of two Toyota Lexus LS 460 cars imported from Japan. The Commissioner of Customs had confiscated the cars for not submitting the required Type Approval Certificate/COP from accredited agencies as per Import Licensing Notes of Chapter 87 para (7). The appeals were filed before the Tribunal by the importers, contending that they had applied to the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport in Japan for the certificates, but the Ministry refused to issue them. The Tribunal applied the maxim lex non cogit ad impossibilia, stating that the law cannot demand the impossible, and upheld the appeals, noting that the importers had made efforts to comply but were unable to obtain the necessary certificates.The judgment elaborates on the requirement specified in para (7) of the Import Licensing Notes of Chapter 87, mandating the submission of a Type Approval Certificate/COP from an international accredited agency at the time of customs clearance. The Policy Circular No. 26 dated 09.02.2004 lists the accredited agencies, including the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport in Japan for vehicles imported from Japan. The judgment emphasizes that the importers were obligated to obtain the certificates solely from the designated Ministry.Furthermore, the judgment highlights the importers' attempts to obtain the required certificates from the Ministry of Land, Infrastructure and Transport in Japan. While one importer received a response stating the Ministry's inability to issue the certificates complying with ECE regulations, the other importer did not receive any response. The Tribunal considered these circumstances and concluded that it was unreasonable to expect the importers to fulfill the condition of submitting the certificates when the designated agency refused to provide them, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.In conclusion, the judgment underscores the Tribunal's decision based on the impossibility of fulfilling the certificate submission condition due to the Ministry's refusal. It clarifies that the importers acted in accordance with the Import Policy requirements by applying to the designated agency, but were unable to secure the necessary certificates, justifying the dismissal of the appeals. The judgment also acknowledges the unnecessary reference to previous cases and affirms the Tribunal's decision on the grounds of impossibility faced by the importers.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
