TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (7) TMI 26
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s) has rejected the appeal of the Appellant and upheld the Order-in-Original. 2. Briefly stated facts of the present case are that the Appellant are engaged in importing of goods. In normal course of business, they imported Heavy Melting Scrap and filed Bill of Entry No. 4236079 dated 01.09.2025. The Department, after examining the documents, found that Pre-Shipment Inspection Certificate ('PSIC') uploaded by the Appellant had been issued by M/s Asia Inspection Agency Ltd. As per PSIC, place of inspection is Port Georgetown, Guyana. As per the DGFT Public Notice No. 48/2015-20 dated 05.01.2023, Guyana is not mentioned anywhere in the area of operation of M/s Asia Inspection Agency Ltd. Accordingly, the Department treated the PSIC as inva....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....clude those goods in respect of which condition has been complied with. He further submits that in the present case, the goods have been inspected by accredited/empanelled agencies before clearance of it and therefore, condition has been complied with prior to clearance of the goods and hence, the impugned goods are no more said to be prohibited goods. 4.2 He also submits that PSIC is required to be presented before the actual clearance of the goods and in the present case, said condition has been duly complied when empanelled agency has given the certificate. He further submits that the plain intention behind requirement of PSIC is to rule out possibility of containing arms, ammunition, mines, shells, cartridges or any war material in t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Ahmedabad] * CC vs. Senor Metals Pvt Ltd - [2009 (236) ELT 445 (Guj.)] * Bhushan Steel Ltd vs. CC, Visakhapatnam - [2016 (336) ELT 699 (Tri. Hyd.) * M/s Kamachi Steels Ltd vs. CC, Chennai - [2023 (7) TMI 779-CESTAT Chennai] 5. On the other hand, the learned Authorized Representative for the Department has filed the written submissions and has reiterated the findings of the impugned order. 5.1 He submits that the goods were rightly seized by the Department because the Appellant could not produce a valid PSIC and the PSIC uploaded by the Appellant was issued by M/s Asia Inspection Agency Ltd showing the place of inspection as Port Georgetown, Guyana, which was not a notified area of the operation for the said....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 114AA of the Act. Further, we find that though the said agency was empanelled with the DGFT but the only lapse was that it was not authorized for that area where the inspection took place. But, subsequent, on the request of the Appellant, Post Shipment Inspection was allowed because the DGFT Policy nowhere prohibits the Post Shipment Inspection. On Post Shipment Inspection, nothing objectionable material was found in the impugned goods because the said goods did not contain any war material etc. 7. We also find that it is not disputed that the goods were inspected in Guyana by the agency which is an empanelled agency of DGFT. The only lapse was that the said agency was not authorized to operate in Guyana. Further, we find that when t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t in the case of Commissioner of Customs vs. Senor Metals Pvt. Limited - 2009 (236) ELT 445 (Guj.) wherein it was held that Section 111(d) of the Act permits confiscation of goods improperly imported, namely, any goods imported : (i) contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under the Act, or (ii) contrary to any prohibition imposed by any other law for the time being in force. The former is not the case of Revenue. In so far as the latter is concerned, there is no prohibition against import of the goods in question. 'Paragraph No. 2.32 of the Handbook itself specifies this. Only, the import is subject to fulfilment of stipulated conditions which are to be complied with by the exporter. Non-compliance thereof may ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nalty on the above three appellants." 9. Further, we also find that in the case of CC vs. Senor Metals Pvt Ltd (supra), the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court has held as under: "10. Section 111(d) of the Act permits confiscation of goods improperly imported, namely, any goods imported : (i) contrary to any prohibition imposed by or under the Act, or (ii) contrary to any prohibition imposed by any other law for the time being in force. The former is not the case of revenue. In so far as the latter is concerned, there is no prohibition against import of the goods in question "Paragraph No. 2.32 of the Handbook itself specifies this. Only, the import is subject to fulfilment of stipulated conditions which are to....