<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<?xml-stylesheet type="text/xsl" href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_sitemap/rss_feed_blog.xsl?v=1750492856"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
  <channel>
    <title>Import of ethephon ripener held insecticide u/s 3(e); permit breach warrants confiscation and Customs Act penalties</title>
    <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95049</link>
    <description>CESTAT held that the imported &quot;ethylene ripener&quot; containing ethephon is an &quot;insecticide&quot; under Section 3(e) of the Insecticide Act, 1968, as ethephon is listed in its Schedule. Even if imported for non-insecticidal use, DGFT Notification No. 106/(RE-2013)/2009-2014 validly mandates an import permit from the Registration Committee, which the importers failed to obtain despite their undertaking before the Bombay HC. The goods, imported in violation of the notification and misdeclared to circumvent restrictions, were rightly held liable to confiscation under Section 111(d), (f) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option of re-export, failing which absolute confiscation and destruction would follow. Penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA on all appellants, including the customs broker, were upheld. The appeals were dismissed.</description>
    <language>en-us</language>
    <pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2025 08:39:22 +0530</pubDate>
    <lastBuildDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2025 08:39:24 +0530</lastBuildDate>
    <generator>TaxTMI RSS Generator</generator>
    <atom:link href="https://www.taxtmi.com/rss_feed_blog?id=871515" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/>
    <item>
      <title>Import of ethephon ripener held insecticide u/s 3(e); permit breach warrants confiscation and Customs Act penalties</title>
      <link>https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95049</link>
      <description>CESTAT held that the imported &quot;ethylene ripener&quot; containing ethephon is an &quot;insecticide&quot; under Section 3(e) of the Insecticide Act, 1968, as ethephon is listed in its Schedule. Even if imported for non-insecticidal use, DGFT Notification No. 106/(RE-2013)/2009-2014 validly mandates an import permit from the Registration Committee, which the importers failed to obtain despite their undertaking before the Bombay HC. The goods, imported in violation of the notification and misdeclared to circumvent restrictions, were rightly held liable to confiscation under Section 111(d), (f) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option of re-export, failing which absolute confiscation and destruction would follow. Penalties under Sections 112(a) and 114AA on all appellants, including the customs broker, were upheld. The appeals were dismissed.</description>
      <category>Highlights</category>
      <law>Customs</law>
      <pubDate>Mon, 15 Dec 2025 08:39:22 +0530</pubDate>
      <guid isPermaLink="true">https://www.taxtmi.com/highlights?id=95049</guid>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>