Document Fragment View
Fragment Information
Showing contexts for: HS classification in Kemp And Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs on 6 June, 2003Matching Fragments
2. In view of the foregoing, I order confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 I allow redemption of the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only.) I impose a penalty of Rs. 15,000/- (Rupees Fifteen Thousand Only.) on M/s. Kemp & Company Ltd., Mumbai 25 under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962."
3. Hence, these appeals on the grounds:-
"1. Thereafter, parts were shown in ITC/HC as consumer goods on 25.3.96 and included as restricted requiring specific licences. Component parts are not marketable consumer goods and were specifically permitted under para 22 of the Exim Import/Export Policy 92-97. Obviously, there was some contradiction, as there was no change in the policy. The DGFT vide IPC Cir. No. 60/92-97 dated 28.11.95 had pointed out that in the context of the Export and Import Policy aligned on ITC/(HS) classification 92-97, representations were received by the DGFT, pointing out certain anomalies and made clarification in respect of certain items. In the said IPC circular, in para 3, it is stated "in this connection, it is hereby again clarified that the aforesaid publication is not an attempt to change the existing item wise policy. Hence, in case of any doubts/disputes as regards the nature of restriction application to individual items, of imports or exports, the Exim Policy provisions, as contained in the Export and Import Policy, 1992-97 (revised Edn March 95) and amendments thereon should be referred to and prevail in the mater of interpretation.
4. No licences were issued, obviously, as the goods had been again listed under OGL other than negative list in terms of Notification No. 9(RE-96)92-97 dated 21.8.96 being included in 95038009 and 950390.09 -parts FREE. The fact that the DGFT has again listed pars of Toys/Dolls under OGL prima facie indicates that the ITC/HS classification list dated 25.3.96 there was no change in the policy, but there was an error. There was thus no justification for taking penal action against the goods and against the appellants.
5. The change was unexpected and without prior notice and hence a caution or a warning would have met the end of justice or alternatively a nominal fine ought to have been imposed. Since, IPC circular No. 13 dated 30.8.96, the DGFT has admitted several omissions in the ITC/HS classification, at the same time confirming that there was no change in the 92-97 PB. If so, it was erroneous on the part of the import trade control authorities to describe "component parts" as "consumer goods" and demand specific licence."