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 sets aside order, deems import compliant with foreign trade policy.</h1> <h3>M/s Suven Engineering Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad -II</h3> M/s Suven Engineering Enterprises Versus Commissioner of Customs, Hyderabad -II - 2019 (370) E.L.T. 513 (Tri. - Hyd.) Issues:1. Classification of imported polished marble slabs under Custom Tariff Heading 6802.2. Compliance with foreign trade policy regarding the value of imported goods.3. Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.4. Imposition of fine and penalty under Sections 112(a) and 125 of the Customs Act.5. Interpretation of DGFT notifications and Public Notice regarding free import of goods.Classification of Imported Polished Marble Slabs:The appellant imported polished marble slabs from Sri Lanka, declaring a value of US$ 26 per sq. m. Customs Authorities classified the goods under CTH 6802, which can be freely imported if the value is not less than US $50 per Sq.M. The Additional Commissioner of Customs held that import below US $50 per sq. m. requires a DGFT license, leading to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The redetermination of value did not result in a duty demand due to full exemption for imports from SAARC countries.Compliance with Foreign Trade Policy:The appellant argued that DGFT notifications and a Public Notice allowed free import of marble slabs under certain conditions. Notification No. 18/2008 required a value of US dollars 50 and above per sq. m. for import, exempting imports from Nepal. Public Notice No. 25 (RE-98)/97-2002 permitted free import from SAARC countries, including Sri Lanka. The appellant sought clarification from DGFT, which confirmed the validity of the public notice. The appellant contended that their imports complied with the policy, and Section 111(d) did not apply.Confiscation and Penalties:The Order-in-Original and the First Appellate Authority upheld the confiscation and imposed a fine and penalty under Sections 112(a) and 125 of the Customs Act. The appellant challenged these decisions based on their compliance with the foreign trade policy and the validity of the DGFT notifications and Public Notice.Interpretation of DGFT Notifications and Public Notice:The Tribunal analyzed the conflicting DGFT notifications and the Public Notice to determine the import conditions for marble slabs. The First Appellate Authority incorrectly dismissed the Public Notice, leading to the denial of the appellant's eligibility for free import from SAARC countries. The Tribunal held that the appellant met the conditions of the Public Notice, making the marble slabs freely importable from Sri Lanka. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, allowing the appeal.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the impugned order and emphasizing the importance of correctly interpreting and applying foreign trade policies and notifications in import cases.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
