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 confiscation of imported machines under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act was sustainable when the import itself was not found to be unauthorised, but the machines were alleged to have been sold in breach of the conditions of the exemption notification and the import policy.
Analysis: The confiscation order proceeded on the footing that the machines were sold contrary to Notification No. 159/86 and were not used by the registered exporter as required by the relevant conditions. On the facts found, such a post-import breach, if established, could attract confiscation under clause (o) of Section 111 of the Customs Act. However, the order under challenge was made under clause (d) of Section 111. That provision applies where the import itself is unlawful, and not to a case where an otherwise lawful import later becomes vulnerable because of a subsequent act or omission.
Conclusion: Confiscation under Section 111(d) was not sustainable, and the impugned order was set aside.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded because the confiscation was invoked under the wrong statutory clause, even though the alleged breach, if proved, could only have been relevant under a different provision.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an import is lawful at the time it is made, confiscation cannot be sustained under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act for a subsequent breach of exemption or policy conditions; at most, the case may fall under the provision dealing with post-import contravention.