Shireen Imex Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Chennai)
The case before the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT), Chennai, involved a challenge to an order that restricted redemption of confiscated imported goods only for re-export. The appellant had imported goods through a Bill of Entry dated 06.12.2024. During assessment, it was observed that certain requirements, including compliance with Minimum Import Price (MIP) conditions under DGFTNotification No. 33/2024 dated 01.10.2024, were not satisfied, as the declared value was below the prescribed threshold. Consequently, the goods were treated as prohibited and confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, with a penalty imposed under Section 112(a). The adjudicating authority allowed redemption of the goods on payment of fine but restricted their clearance to re-export.
The appellant challenged only the condition restricting redemption to re-export, having already paid the redemption fine and penalty. It was argued that a subsequent notification dated 04.01.2025 amended the earlier notification by changing the classification of the goods from “prohibited” to “restricted.” The appellant contended that, in light of this beneficial amendment and willingness to pay duty on enhanced value, the goods should be allowed for home consumption rather than re-export.
The Revenue opposed the appeal, maintaining that the import policy applicable at the time of import governed the case, under which the goods were prohibited, and therefore the restriction to re-export was justified.
