TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (1) TMI 170
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nistry of Agriculture. At the time of import, the appellant did not furnish the requisite Import Permit, hence, were not allowed to clear the goods. The appellant approached the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala and the Hon'ble High Court vide order dated 15.02.2012 in Writ Petition No.1577 of 2006 (K) held that as per Section 38(b) of the Insecticide Act 1968, if goods falling under the purview of the above Act were imported for non-insecticidal use, provisions of the Act would not apply and hence the condition in the import policy requiring importers to get registered under the Insecticide Act, 1968 for applying for licence to import boric acid was arbitrary and unsustainable. This order was challenged by the Revenue and the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala vide Order dated 03.06.2014 in Writ Appeal No.648/2012 set aside the order of the Single Bench. During the interregnum period, based on the directions of the Hon'ble High Court, the imports of boric acid were permitted after execution of bond in terms of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Revenue issued show-cause notice dated 01.10.2014 under Section 124 read with Section 143 of the Customs Act, 1962 allegi....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e of the impugned products as is held by the Division Bench of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. The appellant had failed to produce the same at the time of import. Though the goods were released provisionally based on the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, the fact still remains that the substantial condition of import was not satisfied by the appellant, hence, as per the bond, the goods were liable for confiscation and penalty was rightly imposed. 5. Heard both sides. The undisputed facts are that the appellant vide 29 Bills of Entry imported boric acid for non-insecticidal purposes and as per the Notification, they were allowed to import only on production of a registration certification from the concerned authorities. Rejecting this direction of the Revenue, the appellant filed Writ Petition and pending the decision on the issue the impugned goods were cleared provisionally as per the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. The order dated 07.02.2007 of the Hon'ble High Court is reproduced below: Accordingly, the Revenue cleared the goods on the basis of a PD bond reproduced below: 6. Again, on 23rd July 2013 the Hon'ble High Court issued another o....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....it Petition (Maliakkal Industrial Enterprises Versus Union of India 2013 (290) E.L.T. 330 (Ker.) (15-2-2012) observed as follows: "8. ..................................... According to me, for valid imposition of such a condition on importers, Section 38 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 should have been qualified by words like, "subject to provisions of the export-import policy", "except otherwise provided for in any other law for the time being in force", which is not the case here. Or else, an appropriate provision should be made in the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, or at least in the import policy, making it obligatory on the authorities under the Insecticides Act, to consider applications for registration of boric acid, which is not intended for use as an insecticide. In the above circumstances, I have no doubt in my mind that the impugned condition in the import policy requiring the petitioners to take out a registration under the Insecticides Act, 1968, for applying for licence to import boric acid is arbitrary and unsustainable and is liable to be quashed. I do so". Thus, it is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble High Court (Single Bench) duri....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... The Review Petition against the above order filed by the appellant was also dismissed (Maliakkal Industrial Enterprises Versus Union of India 2017 (353) E.L.T. 172 (Ker.) (dated 28-2-2017) observing as follows: "16. The learned counsel for the review petitioners submits that though the liability initially mulcted upon by the Commissioner was to a nominal extent, it has now been sought to be enhanced by filing an appeal at the instance of the Department and hence the grievance. This Court does not intend to express any opinion with regard to the quantification of the liability, either towards the duty or the penalty, as it is open for the review petitioners to have the same challenged by way of appropriate proceedings in accordance with law. 17. Before parting with the case, it is necessary to make an observation that the common judgment was passed by the Division Bench of this Court nearly 2½ years ago. Despite the specific observation made by the Bench in Paragraph 45 as to the course being pursued in respect of 'Local manufacturers', the fact remains that they are still to obtain the registration, though their application is stated as pending, as put for....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ind, any irregularity in clearance of the imports to attract penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Moreover, it is a fact that the bond is executed under Section 18 while the show-cause notice is issued under Section 124 read with Section 143 of the Customs Act, 1962, which is not in accordance with provisions of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1962. Accordingly, the penalty is set aside and the appeal No. C/21028/2015 filed by the appellant is allowed. 12. In Appeal No. C/21153/2015, the Revenue is in appeal on the ground that the Commissioner had failed to impose redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and in not imposing commensurate penalty under Section 112(a). For the reasons discussed above, since the goods were cleared based on the directions of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, we do not find any reason to impose redemption fine and penalty, in the circumstances, the goods were imported and cleared. Consequently, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. Appeal No. C/21028/2015 is allowed and Appeal No. C/21153/2015 is dismissed. (Order pronounced in Open Court on 05.12.2025.) ============= Document 1 Annexure - Axi. 2....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... passed by this Hon' ble Courts , Ext. 14 : True copy of the interim order passed by this Hon' ble Court in IA. 13600/06 1h W. P. (C) No. 1577/06 dt. 29.9.06. Ext. P6 : True copy of the will of Entry dt. 31.1.2007 No. 193389. eat 15. The copy of the notification NO. 2 (RD-2006). mnI . 2004-2009. 01. 04.04. 2006 Document 2 100 RS. 100 HUNDRED RUPEES ATINGI INDIAPLSS 11881881INDIA NON JUDICIALS 188 88 U 236029 8ch0000 EM KERALA P.D BOND KNOW ALL BY THESE PRESENTS THAT, I, Joseph Maliakkal, aged 70 years, S/o Maliakkal Kunjuvareed and Authorised Signatory of M/s. Maliakkal Industrial Enterprises, XXI/1773, Palluruthy, Kochi- 682 006 hereinafter referred to as the "Importer" which expression shall unless or excluded by or repugnant to the context include their successors hereby firmly bind ourselves unto the President of India (hereinafter referred to as the Government) to pay demand and without demur Rs 32,39,531.00 (Rupees Thirty Two Lakhs Thirty Nine Thousand Five Hundred and Thirty One only) the difference between the duty finally assessed under Sub Section 2 of section 18 of the Customs Aet, 1962 read with the Customs Provisional duty assessment Regu....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....show that the - goods covered under this Bill of Entry are used only for industrial purposes as ordered by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala. Contd .... 3 Document 3 Annexare-A6 30 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM Present: THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE DR. MANJULA CHELLUR THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE K. VINOD CHANDRAN Tuesday, the 23rd day of july 2013/1st sravana, 1935 IA. 500/2013 IN WA No. 617/2012 Against Judgement dated 15/02/2012 in WPC. 4168/2007 of this Court PETITIONER/1ST RESPONDENT IN WRIT APPEAL: MALIAKKAL INDUSTRIAL ENTERPRISES PALLURUTHY, KOCHI-682006 REPRESENTED BY ITS SOLE PROPRIETOR JOSEPH MALIAKKAL. RESPONDENTS/APPELLANTS & RESPONDENTS 2 & 3 IN WRIT APPEAL: 1. UNION OF INDIA, REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF FINANCE, DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE, NORTH BLOCK, NEW DELHI-110001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF FOREIGN TRADE, 1 DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE, MINISTRY OF COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI-110011. 3. THE CENTRAL BOARD OF EXCISE AND CUSTOMS, MINISTRY OF FINANCE (DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE) , NEW DELHI-110011. 4. THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CUSTOMS HOUSE, COCHIN -682009. 5. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONE....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....आयà¥à¤•à¥à¤¤ का कारà¥à¤¯à¤²à¤¯ OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS :41989 6 CUSTOM HOUSE: a)fa- COCHIN-682 009 4 974 Tel: 0484-2666328, 2666861 to 64, Fax 0484-2668468 BY Regd. Post AD Dated: 30.07.2013 F.No. S32/135/2013 AP(I) Cus To /M/s Maliakkal Industries Enterprises, D.No. XXI/1773, Palluruthy, Kochi-682011 G'men, Sub: Clearance of Boric Acid imported vide Bill of Entry No. 2540154 dated 26.06.2013 as per the Order of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in I A 500/2013 in WA 617/2012 - reg. 1. Please refer to your letter No.NIL dated.26.07.2013 on the above subject. In this connection, you are directed to submit a Bond for provisional Clearance of the consignment. In addition to the normal conditions the following conditions may also be incorporated in the Bond. 2. "As per Order of Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in I.A 500/2013 in W.A 617/2012 we hereby undertake that, a. No further consignments of Boric Acid will be received / imported by us till finalization of the issue. b. We will produce the documentary evidence certified by the Assistant / Deputy Commissioner of the Jurisdictiona....