Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Mumbai
Air Works Engg. Pvt. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs on 20 May, 2004
Equivalent citations: 2004(176)ELT404(TRI-MUMBAI)
ORDER Moheb Ali M., Member (T)
1. The appellant imported a consignment declared as radio equipment (aircraft parts) valued at Rs. 1,09,39,029/- CIF and sought clearance of the same against camel No. US 39806106. The goods were meant for demonstration of functioning of various instruments in aeroplane cockpit during training sessions. The importer could not submit India Trade Promotion Organisation certificate as required under notification 157/90-Cus dated 28.3.1990, hence the subject consignment was not allowed clearance duty free. The imported goods were required for a training session to be held from May 4th to 8th 1998. Since the imported goods could not be cleared for the want of the certificate as mentioned above the importer requested for permission to re-export the same. On perusal of the document the department noted that the items under import form a complete radio navigational system falling under sub heading 8526.91 of the Customs Tariff Act 1975 and are restricted for import under the import policy then in existence. The Commissioner therefore held that the goods under import are liable to confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the customs Act. He allowed re-export on payment of a fine of Rs. 11,00,000/-. He also imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the importer. Hence this appeal.
2. Heard Both sides
3. Both sides have argued on whether restricted goods when imported but not cleared by the Customs, can be confiscated. The appellant's argument is that the goods in this case are not liable for confiscation as they never have been cleared out of the customs charge. The learned DR Shri S.V. Parelkar strongly contended that goods are liable for confiscation as they have been imported in contravention of the import policy. That the goods are not cleared from the customs is irrelevant to the issue. He relied on the case of A.K. Jewellers v. CC, Mumhai (2003 (155) ELT 585) where a larger bench of the Tribunal held that redemption fine can be imposed on the goods allowed to be re-exported. He argued that the goods have been rightly confiscated by the Commissioner.
4. We decide the issue on whether the goods are restricted at all in the present case. It is not in dispute that the goods are covered under a valid Carnet.
5. Clause 3(P) of the Foreign Trade (exemption from application of goods in certain cases) Order, 1993 read as follows. This provision exempts goods from application of Rules made under FTDR.
"Rule 3 (P) being goods imported temporarily imported first are used in fairs, exhibition or similar events specified in Schedule 1 of notification of the Government of India in the Ministry of Finance No. 157/90 Customs dated 28-3-1990 against ATA Carnet under the customs convention of the ATA Carnets for temporary admission of goods done as russels on 30th July 1963."
The impugned goods are covered under carnet as admitted by the department. They are mentioned in Schedule 1 of notification 157/90. The fact that the benefit of notification is not given to the goods for want of certificate does not exclude the goods from the exemption mentioned above from licensing formalities. The goods in question satisfy all the requirements of Rule 3(P) as mentioned above. No licence is required for the importation. The Commissioner erred in holding that the goods require an import licence. He ought not have confiscated them and imposed a penalty as the good, are covered by a valid carnet.
6. The order of the Commissioner is set aside and the appeal is allowed.
(Operative part pronounced in court)