Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis

40. ....

57. Thus, it was categorically held that wherever the conditions prescribed for import or export of goods are not complied with, such goods shall fall in the category of “prohibited” goods withing the scope and meaning of section 2(33) of the Act. At this stage there is a twist in the tale since it is relevant to take note that the ratio in the aforesaid two cases (the latter decided by the two honourable judges of the Supreme Court) was not referred to or perhaps overlooked in a decision by three honourable judges of the Supreme Court in the cited case of Commissioner of Customs v. Atul Automations Pvt. Ltd. [(2019) 7 GSTR-OL 313 (SC); (2019) 3 SCC 539.]. Atul Automations [(2019) 7 GSTR-OL 313 (SC); (2019) 3 SCC 539.] was a case where the appellant in October-November, 2016 imported MFDs without requisite permission, viz., multi- function device, digital photocopiers and printers, which incidentally were also classified as “other wastes” under rule 3(1)(23) of the Hazardous Waste Management Rules, and the goods were confiscated with penalty imposed, declining relief of release/redemption. The challenge was upheld observing that (para 9, pages 318 and 319 in 7 GSTR-OL):