Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether skimmed milk powder imported under DFIA could be treated as prohibited goods and absolutely confiscated for non-production of a BIS certificate, and whether penalty could be sustained.
Analysis: The goods were found to be freely importable and not shown to be prohibited under the Customs Act, the Foreign Trade Policy, or any other law. Non-production of a BIS certificate, at the highest, amounted to breach of a condition or restriction and did not by itself convert the goods into prohibited goods within the meaning of Section 2(33) of the Customs Act, 1962. The import had also undergone FSSAI testing and was cleared under the domestic food safety regime, while the BIS framework relied upon by the department was held not to make the importer liable for absolute confiscation in these facts. In the absence of prohibition, complete confiscation and consequential penalty were held unsustainable; at most, the goods could have been considered for redemption.
Conclusion: The goods were not prohibited goods, absolute confiscation was not warranted, and the penalty could not be sustained.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the imported goods were held liable neither to confiscation nor to penalty.
Ratio Decidendi: Mere non-compliance with a certificate requirement does not convert otherwise freely importable goods into prohibited goods unless import is expressly prohibited by law.