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 Decision: Import License Not Required for Pickled and Oiled Goods</h1> <h3>ASIL INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI</h3> ASIL INDUSTRIES LTD. Versus COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORT), MUMBAI - 2001 (135) E.L.T. 1095 (Tri. - Mumbai) Issues involved:1. Classification of imported goods under specific tariff headings.2. Determination of the quality of the imported goods.3. Requirement of an import license for the goods.Analysis:1. Classification of imported goods under specific tariff headings:The appellants imported goods described as 'Hot Rolled Coils Seconds,' but the test certificate identified them as 'Hot Rolled Steel Coils of SAE 1050.' The goods were believed to be of tube making quality (TMQ) requiring a specific license for import. The Commissioner held that the goods, being pickled and oiled, were 'further worked,' falling outside the beneficial scope of a specific notification. However, the Tribunal found that pickling and oiling did not amount to further working based on the tariff structure and sub-notes. Consequently, the goods were deemed eligible for the notification's benefits.2. Determination of the quality of the imported goods:The sales documents termed the goods as 'seconds,' but an expert report indicated they were of prime quality. The Tribunal noted that the importer did not contest the expert's findings, and as the goods had already been released and were unavailable for further examination, the claim that the goods were not of prime quality was rejected.3. Requirement of an import license for the goods:The issue of whether the goods required an import license was also addressed. While one party argued that the goods were freely importable under a specific nomenclature, the opposing party contended that the goods' nomenclature indicated tube making quality. However, the Tribunal found no evidence to support the claim that the goods necessitated a specific license as per the ITC Notification. Consequently, the order of confiscation under Section 111(d) was deemed invalid, and the imposition of penalties was set aside.In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled that the imported goods were eligible for clearance under a particular notification, overturning the orders of confiscation and penalty imposition. Appropriate relief was granted in favor of the appellant.
TaxTMI 