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 Upheld Revenue Appeals, Orders to Clear Imported Goods within 10 Days</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Versus M/s. S.P Associates, SRK Overseas, Delhi Photocopiers, Excel Copiers, City Office Equipments, Atul Automation Pvt. Ltd. and Skylark Office Machines</h3> Commissioner of Customs, Chennai Versus M/s. S.P Associates, SRK Overseas, Delhi Photocopiers, Excel Copiers, City Office Equipments, Atul Automation Pvt. ... Issues Involved:1. Violation of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007.2. Non-compliance with Hazardous Waste Rules, 2016.3. Non-compliance with Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) registration requirements.4. Import restrictions under Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2015-2020.5. Improper storage of goods under Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962.6. Penalties under Sections 111, 112, and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962.Detailed Analysis:1. Violation of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007:The lower authority found that the values declared by the importers were liable to be rejected under the Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, and the goods needed to be revalued as per the Chartered Engineer’s Certificate. The original authority re-determined the value in terms of Rule 9 of CVR 2007, which was not disputed by either side.2. Non-compliance with Hazardous Waste Rules, 2016:The importers failed to produce necessary information as per the Hazardous Waste Rules, 2016. The original authority proposed confiscation of the goods under Section 111 (d) and 111 (o) of the Customs Act, 1962, and imposed penalties under Section 112 (a) and Section 117. However, the Tribunal found that the imported goods were not 'waste' as they had residual life and were useful articles, thus not falling under the Hazardous Waste Rules.3. Non-compliance with Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) registration requirements:The imported goods were subject to mandatory standards as per BIS, for which the importers neither submitted a registration certificate from BIS nor an exemption letter from MeitY. The Tribunal noted that the Electronics & Information Technology Goods (Requirement for Compulsory Registration) Order 2012 (CRO 2012) did not cover Multi-Functional Devices (MFDs) and that the circulars and letters issued by MeitY could not take the place of law. Therefore, the goods were not prohibited for import under CRO 2012.4. Import restrictions under Foreign Trade Policy (FTP) 2015-2020:The import of the goods was restricted under FTP and could only be imported against authorization from the DGFT, which the importers did not produce. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the goods under Section 111 (d) for violation of FTP but allowed redemption of the goods under Section 125 for home consumption.5. Improper storage of goods under Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962:The importers had deposited the goods in the warehouse pending clearance as per Section 49 of the Customs Act, 1962, but had not applied for or obtained an extension of the period to keep the goods in the warehouse. The Tribunal found that Section 49 is an enabling provision and not a prohibiting section, and thus no penalty could be imposed under Section 117 for contravention of Section 49.6. Penalties under Sections 111, 112, and 117 of the Customs Act, 1962:The original authority imposed penalties under Section 112 (a) for having rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 (d) and Section 111 (o), and under Section 117 for non-compliance with procedures under Section 49. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalties under Section 112 (a) and set aside the penalty under Section 117. The Tribunal found the reduction of penalties fair and reasonable and upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals).Conclusion:The Tribunal upheld the impugned orders and rejected the appeals filed by Revenue. The imported goods, if not already released, must be cleared for home consumption within 10 days from the date of receipt of the copy of this order, provided the respondents pay the duty and other dues as per the impugned orders. The stay applications were disposed of accordingly.
TaxTMI 