TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (3) TMI 1329
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the original prayer, which was admitted. 2. The appellant filed Bill of Entry (BE), No. 7081882 dated 06.12.2024 through M/s Galaxy Commercial for clearance of imported goods, the same was taken up for assessment by the Faceless Assessment Group (FAG) officer and the BE was referred to the Port Assessment Group (PAG) as it appeared that the mandatory BIS certificate for shoes was not uploaded and that the imported pile fabric attracted the Minimum Import Price (MIP) condition under DGFT Notification No. 33/2024 dated 01.10.2024, which did not appear to be satisfied. Under the said notification, import of 100% polyester knitted pile fabrics is prohibited where the CIF value is below USD 3.5 per kg. As the appellant declared a value belo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....01.2025, upheld the adjudication order. This was done contrary to settled legal principles and judicial precedents, which consistently hold that no conditions can be imposed when goods are permitted to be redeemed under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. [Amba Lal Vs Union of India [1983 (13) ELT 1321 (SC)] D. The confiscation order was based on DGFT Notification No. 33/2024-25 dated 01.10.2024, treating goods imported below the Minimum Import Price (MIP) as prohibited. The Appellants submit that they had vide letter dated 18.01.2025 agreed to pay duty on the enhanced value in compliance DGFT Notification No. 33/2024 dated 01.10.2024, which was not accepted. E. They had already paid the redemption fine and penalty. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....at the appellant does not dispute the fine or penalty and challenges only the portion of the OIO directing re-export of the impugned goods after redemption. Further the OIO has also not raised the issue of BIS certificate for the goods, consequent to the reply given by the appellant. Nor has revenue appealed against the same. 5. The appellant has based his request for the release of goods on the basis of his understanding of the Supreme Courts judgment in Amba Lal (supra). The said judgment was examined and rejected in the impugned order as being not applicable to the facts of this case. I find that the judgment in in Amba Lal was based on a concession made by the learned Additional Solicitor General. The judgment goes on to record as un....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....said order of the Collector of Central Excise." (emphasis added) Law laid down by the Court on the basis of a concession or admission, does not constitute a binding precedent. In P. Nallammal and Another Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police [(1999) 6 SCC 559 / JT 1999 (5) SC 410], the Apex Court observed: "7 The volte-face of the Union of India cannot be frowned at, for, it is open to the State or Union of India or even a private party to retrace or even resile from a concession once made in the court on a legal proposition. Firstly, because the party concerned, on a reconsideration of the proposition could comprehend a different construction as more appropriate. Secondly, the construction of statutory provision canno....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ule against a retrospective construction is different. If a legislation confers a benefit on some persons but without inflicting a corresponding detriment on some other person or on the public generally, and where to confer such benefit appears to have been the legislators object, then the presumption would be that such a legislation, giving it a purposive construction, would warrant it to be given a retrospective effect. This exactly is the justification to treat procedural provisions as retrospective. In Government of India and others v. Indian Tobacco Association (2005) 7 SCC 396, the doctrine of fairness was held to be relevant factor to construe a statute conferring a benefit, in the context of it to be given a retrospective operation.....