TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2022 (4) TMI 1215
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....umanitarian relief by M/s. SOS International Inc., USA. 2. The supplier had issued a non-commercial invoice indicating that the items were donated for relief or charity only, not for exchange for profit or gain and that the same did not have any commercial value. In the Sea Waybill issued by the supplier/donor, it was also indicated as "NO LICENCE REQUIRED". In the Bill-of-Lading issued by the donor/supplier, the goods were described as "DONATED RELIEF CARGO" with no commercial value. 3. Upon receipt of the Bill-of-Entry, the same was initially sent to the Faceless assessment and then taken up at the local port for assessment. The Revenue sought for examination by the Chartered Engineer. The Panel- Chartered Engineer vide certificate date....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e for the appellant and Shri K.B. Nanaiah, Learned Assistant Commissioner (Authorized Representative) for the Revenue.At the outset, the representative for the appellant admits that there is no interpretation or classification issue involved nor is there any challenge other than: (i) Against declaring some of the items as prohibited; (ii) Against the finding as to the mis-declaration by the appellant; (iii) Redemption fine on items at Tables 7 and 11 of the Order-in-Original; and (iv) The penalty levied under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 7. In view of the above submissions, the case was taken up for hearing. I have considered the rival contentions and have gone through the documents as well as the orders/judgements referre....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e importer, who is not the end-user, confirms that the same would be given to the needy, either directly or through some charitable organization; and the Government, through the Ministry of Finance, has also issued Notifications from time to time relaxing the import conditions, which facts are undisputed. 10.1 Surprisingly, when the appellant claimed that the medical equipments in question were for the treatment of affected persons due to the outbreak of the pandemic, without suspecting the same, the Adjudicating Authority still proceeds to hold, without examining the same in the context of the above Notifications, that some of the items were E-Waste and hazardous and that some of them were prohibited, which is not in the proper perspectiv....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....hand, I have observed that there is an expert opinion, who has reported that the goods imported were not E-waste or hazardous, which is not disputed. Further, since no other reason is given by the Adjudicating Authorityto hold that the items at Table 6 of the Order-in-Original are prohibited, the said finding is not sustainable. In view of the above, therefore, the order of confiscation under Section 111(d) ibid. is not sustainable, for the above reasons and needs to be set aside, which I do so. 11.3 Insofar as the confiscation of items at Table-10 of the Order-in-Original is concerned, it is observed by the Adjudicating Authority that the said items required import licence; but, as observed elsewhere in this order, there is no finding giv....