CESTAT held that the statutory definition of "importer" in Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962 is unambiguous and confined to the period between importation and clearance for home consumption; only a person exercising ownership, effective control or lien over goods during that period qualifies as importer. The appellant had no evidence of control or interest prior to clearance and acquired ownership only post-clearance, hence did not qualify as importer and was not liable under Section 28 for customs duty or interest. Absolute confiscation was unsustainable as gold is restricted, not prohibited; neither knowledge nor reason-to-believe under Section 111 was established, so penalty under Section 112(b)(i) failed. The impugned order was set aside and the original adjudication restored.
CESTAT held that the statutory definition of "importer" in Section 2(26) of the Customs Act, 1962 is unambiguous and confined to the period between importation and clearance for home consumption; only a person exercising ownership, effective control or lien over goods during that period qualifies as importer. The appellant had no evidence of control or interest prior to clearance and acquired ownership only post-clearance, hence did not qualify as importer and was not liable under Section 28 for customs duty or interest. Absolute confiscation was unsustainable as gold is restricted, not prohibited; neither knowledge nor reason-to-believe under Section 111 was established, so penalty under Section 112(b)(i) failed. The impugned order was set aside and the original adjudication restored.
Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
of 4821 
Join Channel 
