Skip to content
How to use Judgment tools
  1. Click Tools to open PDF, Print, Tag, Note, Favourite, and CiteSignal.
  2. Use Brief & Ask in the toolbar for the AI Brief and case chat.
  3. Jump to sections with the pills below the help bar.

Dynamic Global Link Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Nhava

Dynamic Global Link vs Commissioner of Customs, Nhava

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided Sep 20, 2001
~2 min read
https://sooperkanoon.com/case/25826

For advocates & juniors · 7-day free trial

Brief this judgment before chambers

Stop skimming 50 pages - get an 18-section AI Brief on this case, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial, no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

Citation
Court
Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On
Subject
Miscellaneous

Case Summary

AI-generated summary - not the official court judgment text.

Miscellaneous

Key legal issue
Miscellaneous

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Dynamic Global Link

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs, Nhava

Legal References

Reported In
(2002)(149)ELT583Tri(Mum.)bai

Excerpt

1. the appeal is against the order of the commissioner finding that the processed pulses rendered for export by the appellant were liable to confiscation under clause (d) of section 113 of the act, and permitting to be redeemed on payment of fine of rs. 2.50 lakhs.2. the departmental representative agrees that the export of moong dal, which is under consideration, was not prohibited or restricted. it did not require a licence from any authority of government. nor does the commissioner find this to be the requirement. he finds the export to be unauthorised only for the reason that the applicant sought to export the goods, as in fulfilment of the obligation required for an advance licence, contrary to a condition subject to which the licence was issued, that import must take it before export can be made.3. if the export was not in accordance with the conditions specified in that licence, the commissioner would be justified in concluding, as he has, that the export could not be counted towards the fulfilment of the obligation imposed on the importer. it is, however, a different thing to say that because of this fact, the export of the goods itself becomes prohibited. if the export was not otherwise prohibited, it does not become prohibited only because of the failure by the importer to abide by the condition in a particular import licence.4. i therefore allow the appeal to the extent that the confiscation of the goods and penalty imposed on the appellant are set aside.consequential relief.

Full Judgment

1. The appeal is against the order of the Commissioner finding that the processed pulses rendered for export by the appellant were liable to confiscation under Clause (d) of Section 113 of the Act, and permitting to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 2.50 lakhs.

2. The departmental representative agrees that the export of moong dal, which is under consideration, was not prohibited or restricted. It did not require a licence from any authority of government. Nor does the commissioner find this to be the requirement. He finds the export to be unauthorised only for the reason that the applicant sought to export the goods, as in fulfilment of the obligation required for an advance licence, contrary to a condition subject to which the licence was issued, that import must take it before export can be made.

3. If the export was not in accordance with the conditions specified in that licence, the Commissioner would be justified in concluding, as he has, that the export could not be counted towards the fulfilment of the obligation imposed on the importer. It is, however, a different thing to say that because of this fact, the export of the goods itself becomes prohibited. If the export was not otherwise prohibited, it does not become prohibited only because of the failure by the importer to abide by the condition in a particular import licence.

4. I therefore allow the appeal to the extent that the confiscation of the goods and penalty imposed on the appellant are set aside.

Consequential relief.

Continue Your Research


AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial