Arti Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs

Arti Impex vs Commissioner of Customs

Type Court Judgment Court Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai Decided May 03, 2006

~3 min read

https://sooperkanoon.com/case/42553

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

Citation: sooperkanoon.com/42553
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Judge: A T K.K.
Decided On: May 03, 2006
Subject: Customs

Case Summary

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

Customs

Key legal issue: Customs

Parties & Advocates

Appellant / Petitioner

Arti Impex

Respondent

Commissioner of Customs

Excerpt

.....the consignment does not contain any type of arms, ammunition, cartridges, shells, mines, radio active contaminated or any other explosive material. in the absence of such certificate the consignment was seized and confiscated under provisions of section 111(d) of the customs act, 1962 with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of rs. 1,75,000/-. a penalty of rs. 85,000/- is also imposed.2. none appeared for the appellants. i, therefore, perused the records and heard the learned s.d.r. the appellants in their grounds of appeal have stated that the board vide its circular no. 56/2004-cus., dated 18-10-2004 have prescribed a procedure for clearance of imported metal scrap at various ports of india including port of kandla. the said circular divided the metal scrap into two categories. category (i) covered scrap which had already landed in india and that which has left its port of origin on or before 25-10-2004 and which has not yet been cleared from a customs port, icd/cfs or lcs whereas category (ii) covered future imports and bid down a detailed procedure. for category (i) the requirement of foreign trade policy relating to pre-shipment inspection certificate and contract between the importer and exporter was relaxed and consignments of metal scrap was permitted clearance on 100% physical examination only.3. the appellants submitted that their consignment was loaded in the month of september, 2004 itself and there are always delay in the issue of bill of lading which was issued on 28-10-2005 and hence the consignment is covered under category (i) specified by the board circular no. 56/2004 and the clearance should have been allowed after 100% physical examination only without insisting for the pre-shipment certificate. it was accordingly submitted that since on physical examination no contraband goods were found. there was no occasion for confiscation of goods and consequent imposition of fine and penalty.4. i have considered the submission. i find.....

Full Judgment

1. The appellants in this case imported consignment of heavy melting scrap for the import of which they were required to produce pre-shipment inspection certificate as required under the provision of Para 2.32 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09 showing that the consignment does not contain any type of arms, ammunition, cartridges, shells, mines, radio active contaminated or any other explosive material. In the absence of such certificate the consignment was seized and confiscated under provisions of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of Rs. 1,75,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 85,000/- is also imposed.

2. None appeared for the appellants. I, therefore, perused the records and heard the learned S.D.R. The appellants in their grounds of appeal have stated that the Board vide its Circular No. 56/2004-Cus., dated 18-10-2004 have prescribed a procedure for clearance of imported metal scrap at various ports of India including port of Kandla. The said circular divided the metal scrap into two categories. Category (i) covered scrap which had already landed in India and that which has left its port of Origin on or before 25-10-2004 and which has not yet been cleared from a customs port, ICD/CFS or LCS whereas category (ii) covered future imports and bid down a detailed procedure. For category (i) the requirement of Foreign Trade Policy relating to pre-shipment inspection certificate and contract between the importer and exporter was relaxed and consignments of metal scrap was permitted clearance on 100% physical examination only.

3. The appellants submitted that their consignment was loaded in the month of September, 2004 itself and there are always delay in the issue of bill of lading which was issued on 28-10-2005 and hence the consignment is covered under category (i) specified by the Board Circular No. 56/2004 and the clearance should have been allowed after 100% physical examination only without insisting for the pre-shipment certificate. It was accordingly submitted that since on physical examination no contraband goods were found. There was no occasion for confiscation of goods and consequent imposition of fine and penalty.

4. I have considered the submission. I find that in this case the invoice itself is dated 24-10-2004 and therefore the appellants contention that the goods have been loaded in September, 2004 is far from truth. The appellants have not been able to produce any evidence to the effect that goods were indeed loaded prior to 25-10-2004. The appellants have also not bothered to reply to the show cause notice and to appear before the adjudicating authority. When the matter was taken up today, the appellant did not appear in spite of notice.

5. Since the appellants have not been able to produce any evidence regarding loading of consignment prior to 25-10-2004,1 find no infirmity in the order of the Commissioner and accordingly I dismiss the appeal and uphold the order.

Same Court & Year Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumb... Same Parties Arti Impex vs Commissioner of Customs Same Subject Customs Same Judge A T K.K.