TaxTMI Login
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%
of 
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
All Case Laws
Join Channel
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: (i) Whether the imported goods were covered by the import licence as stainless steel angles and, if not, whether confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was justified. (ii) Whether the revisional action under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 was without jurisdiction because it relied on material beyond the original clearance record. (iii) Whether the petitioners were entitled to refund of differential duty without filing a claim within the prescribed time.
Issue (i): Whether the imported goods were covered by the import licence as stainless steel angles and, if not, whether confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was justified.
Analysis: The licence permitted import only of stainless steel angles, while the authorities found on the evidence that the goods imported were stainless steel sheets bent into the form of angles and not angles as understood in trade or in the relevant import policy. Import restrictions under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947 operate as a prohibition for the purpose of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. Once the goods were held to be outside the licence description, the import was contrary to law and liable to confiscation. The court also held that the customs authorities had produced satisfactory evidence and that the finding on classification was not perverse.
Conclusion: The confiscation under Section 111(d) was upheld and this issue was decided against the petitioner.
Issue (ii): Whether the revisional action under Section 130 of the Customs Act, 1962 was without jurisdiction because it relied on material beyond the original clearance record.
Analysis: The revisional power under Section 130 authorises the Board to examine the legality or propriety of the subordinate order and to pass such order as it thinks fit. The record before the proper officer disclosed only a cut sample and expert opinion based on that sample, whereas the later material disclosed the nature of the consignments and supported the view that the goods were sheets bent into angles. The authority was therefore entitled to consider additional material while exercising revisional jurisdiction, and the proceedings were not vitiated for want of jurisdiction.
Conclusion: The revisional proceedings were held to be valid and this issue was decided against the petitioner.
Issue (iii): Whether the petitioners were entitled to refund of differential duty without filing a claim within the prescribed time.
Analysis: The Central Government found that the petitioners had paid duty at a higher rate than the rate applicable to sheets, but it declined to grant the refund because no claim had been lodged within the statutory period and no ground existed for relaxation. The court did not interfere with that aspect.
Conclusion: The refusal to grant refund without a timely claim was left undisturbed and this issue was decided against the petitioner.
Final Conclusion: The petition succeeded only to the limited extent reflected in the reduction of the redemption fine and the waiver of personal penalty, while the confiscation and revisional action were sustained.
Ratio Decidendi: Goods imported contrary to an import restriction or outside the scope of the licence are liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and a revisional authority may consider additional material necessary to determine the legality or propriety of the original order.
TaxTMI 
