Confiscation and duty recovery quashed where licensing records show export obligation discharged; customs lacks jurisdiction absent licence annulment ...
FOB is Incoterm reflecting exporter's transaction value; declared shipping bill value not automatically confiscable under s.113(i), s.125, ss.114(i) a...
CESTAT allowed the appeal and directed release of the consignment subject to payment of customs duties. The Tribunal found the PSIC issued by a DGFT-approved PSIA, despite indicating inspection at Duisburg rather than the Bill of Lading's port of loading, sufficiently established that the imported low-nickel turning scrap complied with Para 2.51 of HBP, 2023 (no hazardous, radioactive or explosive content). Consequently, the goods were not liable to confiscation, the redemption fine was set aside, and the penalty imposed under s.112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 (₹15,00,000) was quashed. The Tribunal held procedural deficiency in the PSIC did not amount to importation of prohibited goods.
CESTAT allowed the appeal and directed release of the consignment subject to payment of customs duties. The Tribunal found the PSIC issued by a DGFT-approved PSIA, despite indicating inspection at Duisburg rather than the Bill of Lading's port of loading, sufficiently established that the imported low-nickel turning scrap complied with Para 2.51 of HBP, 2023 (no hazardous, radioactive or explosive content). Consequently, the goods were not liable to confiscation, the redemption fine was set aside, and the penalty imposed under s.112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 (₹15,00,000) was quashed. The Tribunal held procedural deficiency in the PSIC did not amount to importation of prohibited goods.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4826 
Join Channel 
