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>Customs Tribunal grants relief to appellant, deems department's actions improper. Compliance with Customs Act upheld.</h1> <h3>EXPRESS INDUSTRY COUNCIL OF INDIA Versus CC. (AIRPORT), MUMBAI</h3> EXPRESS INDUSTRY COUNCIL OF INDIA Versus CC. (AIRPORT), MUMBAI - 2010 (249) E.L.T. 107 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues:- Appeal against demand confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals)- Disposal of goods by appellant without department's no objection- Alleged negligence in issuing notice to consignee and informing appellant about Settlement Commission's order- Applicability of Customs Act provisions on sale of uncleared goods- Compliance with Courier Imports and Exports RegulationsAnalysis:Issue 1: Appeal against demand confirmed by Commissioner (Appeals)The appellant appealed against the demand of Rs.2,15,868 confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals). The appellant acted as a custodian under the Customs Act for courier shipments and conducted auctions for detained goods imported through courier mode. The dispute arose when the appellant sold goods without taking a no objection certificate from the Customs department, leading to the demand notice.Issue 2: Disposal of goods by appellant without department's no objectionThe Customs department alleged that the appellant disposed of goods without obtaining a no objection certificate, which was a requirement as per Board's Circular. The appellant argued that they followed the auction procedure under Customs laws and had no obligation to inform the importer directly about the sale of goods. The department's negligence in issuing the no objection certificate was also highlighted.Issue 3: Alleged negligence in issuing notice to consignee and informing appellant about Settlement Commission's orderThe Asst. Commissioner found negligence on the appellant's part for not issuing notices to the consignee and failing to inform about the Settlement Commission's order regarding duty payment. The appellant's defense was based on the contention that they fulfilled their obligations by informing the courier company, not the importer directly.Issue 4: Applicability of Customs Act provisions on sale of uncleared goodsThe order-in-appeal emphasized the importance of Sections 48 and 150 of the Customs Act, 1962, which outline procedures for goods not cleared within a specified period. The appellant's argument that departmental circulars were not binding on them was rejected, as they were obligated to follow the Customs Act provisions, including giving notice to the importer before selling uncleared goods.Issue 5: Compliance with Courier Imports and Exports RegulationsThe appellant relied on Regulation 5 of the Courier Imports and Exports (Clearance) Regulations, 1998, which stated that notice was only required to be given to the authorized courier, not the importer. The Tribunal found that the appellant had followed the auction procedure as per Customs laws and set aside the demand notice, noting that the department's issuance of a No Objection Certificate despite pending litigation was not permissible under the law.In conclusion, the Tribunal allowed the appeal, providing consequential relief to the appellant, as they were found to have followed the prescribed auction procedures under Customs laws, and the department's actions were deemed improper given the circumstances of the case.
TaxTMI 