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 the imported polyester woven labels were disposal goods requiring a specific import licence and, therefore, liable to confiscation and penalty.
Analysis: The Department bore the initial burden to establish that the goods were disposal goods. The finding was based mainly on the alleged jumbling of different sizes and makes, the purchase on weighment basis, and the comparison of prices. However, the assessee disputed the factual basis of jumbling and requested re-examination of the goods, which was not undertaken. The material on record did not show that the exporter was anxious to get rid of the goods, that they were old, deteriorated, or sold at throwaway price. Mere variation in sizes, packing, or price could not, by itself, establish that the goods were disposal goods when the goods were otherwise claimed to be new and marketable.
Conclusion: The imported goods were not proved to be disposal goods, and the confiscation and penalty orders were unsustainable.
Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded and the orders of the lower authorities were set aside with consequential relief.
Ratio Decidendi: Disposal goods cannot be inferred merely from mixed sizes, low price, or non-uniform packing; the Department must affirmatively prove that the goods are old, deteriorated, or otherwise being disposed of as unwanted stock.