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 rules in favor of appellants in goods confiscation case, emphasizing minor defects not warranting penalties.</h1> <h3>M/s Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd., Hariyana International Pvt. Ltd., Shah Brother Versus Commissioner of Customs (Export) Mumbai (Vice-versa)</h3> M/s Viraj Impex Pvt. Ltd., Hariyana International Pvt. Ltd., Shah Brother Versus Commissioner of Customs (Export) Mumbai (Vice-versa) - 2017 (347) E.L.T. ... Issues:Appeals against orders passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Export) Mumbai regarding classification of imported goods under DFRC licenses and subsequent confiscation.Analysis:1. Classification of Imported Goods:The appellants imported Hot Rolled Coils classified under Customs Tariff Heading No. 72082790 against DFRC licenses. The goods were assessed by the customs officer under the same heading and granted duty-free clearance. However, the SIIB detained part of the consignment due to suspected defects. Subsequent investigations revealed some non-prime quality goods, leading to a show cause notice for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority ordered confiscation with an option for redemption on payment of fines and imposed penalties under Section 112(a).2. Arguments by Appellant:The appellant argued that despite minor defects, the goods fell under the same tariff entry and item as declared in the DFRC licenses. They contended that the quality discrepancy did not constitute mis-declaration as the goods' chemical composition met the required parameters. Citing various judgments, the appellant emphasized that minor defects did not warrant confiscation or denial of DFRC benefits.3. Revenue's Position:The Revenue contended that the goods' non-prime quality constituted mis-declaration, making them liable for confiscation and ineligible for DFRC clearance. They argued for enhanced redemption fines and penalties based on the entire consignment's value.4. Tribunal's Decision:The Tribunal analyzed the case, noting that while some goods were non-prime quality on physical examination, their chemical composition matched the required standards. As the goods fell under the same tariff heading as per DFRC licenses, there was no mis-declaration. The Tribunal ruled that minor defects did not warrant confiscation or denial of DFRC benefits. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the appeals of the appellants were allowed. The Revenue's appeals for enhanced fines and penalties were dismissed.In conclusion, the Tribunal's decision clarified the classification of imported goods under DFRC licenses, emphasizing that minor quality discrepancies did not constitute mis-declaration warranting confiscation or denial of benefits. The judgment provided a nuanced analysis of the case law and statutory provisions, leading to a favorable outcome for the appellants.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
