Case Law Details
Texool Wastesavers Vs C.C (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
Relying on the permission which was granted in terms of project report made before the Development Commissioner, which stated that the SEZ unit was permitted to import garments that were almost new but could be out of fashion in terms of time as far as the country of production is concerned, CESTAT Ahmedabad has set aside the confiscation of goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal though noted that new clothes imported could not be called rags and hence there was mis-declaration, it observed that the letter of permission was specifically issued referring to the project report and also permits the assessee to manufacture reconditioned clothing.
As far as the charge under section 111(d) is concerned the Revenue has relied on Public Notice no. 12 (RE-2001)/1997-2002 dated 03/05/2001. The appellants have pointed out that the said circular permits Revenue to test goods at the time of import for pre shipment certificate. In these circumstances, confiscation can only be ordered if the goods do not confirm. In this case no testing was done by Revenue and, therefore, confiscation under section 111(d) cannot be justified.
FULL TEXT OF THE CESTAT JUDGEMENT
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
