Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
TMI Blog
Home / RSS

2026 (4) TMI 319

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....toms Act, 1962 on them, which has been upheld by the Ld. Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Custom House, Kolkata vide the Order-in-Appeal No. KOL/CUS(PORT)/KS/300/2024 dated 08.05.2024. 2. The facts of the case are that the appellant filed a Bill of Entry No. 4667796 dated 16.02.2023 for importation of 10 varieties of tea, against Advance Authorization. The appellant is a manufacturer/exporter and the tea so imported against Advance Authorization was to be re-exported after processing. On importation, sampling of the goods was done and thereafter, the Plant Quarantine Authorities reported that the goods were found to be infested / infected with a quarantine pest notified under Schedules-V and VI. The imported consignment of teas was als....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ytosanitary Certificate issued by the Government of China which mentioned the said fact; that China's plant quarantine categorically prohibits the export of seeds from China. It is also stated that the Plant Quarantine Authorities had drawn samples and only upon testing it was found that the teas contain seeds or are infected with quarantine pest under Schedules V & VI of the Plant Quarantine (Regulation of Import into India) Order,2003, based on which the goods were not allowed for clearance. Therefore, in view of the above facts and circumstances, the Ld. Counsel for the appellant sought waiver of the penalty imposed under Section 112(a)(i) of the Act. 5. On the other hand, the Ld. Authorized Representative of the Revenue contends that....