Case Law Details
Sunita Commercials P Ltd Vs C.C (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
CESTAT Ahmedabad held that Heading No.3102 1000 of the ITC (HS) Policy 2009-2015 allows import of Urea through STC, MMTC and Indian Potash Limited. Hence, goods cannot be held liable to confiscation. Consequently, no penalty u/s 112 can be imposed.
Facts-
Prior to 28-4-2015, under Heading No. 3102 1000 of the ITC (HS) Policy, import of Urea was allowed through STEs viz. STC, MMTC and Indian Potash Limited. The Government of India, Ministry of Chemical and Fertilizers had permitted the Appellant, Sunita Commercials P Ltd to import Technical Grade Urea through any STEs (i.e. MMTC, IPL, STC). The Appellant, accordingly, purchased on High Seas, consignments of Urea imported by the STE viz. MMTC sought clearance thereof with customs by filing Bills of Entry and the proper officer of customs granted clearance to the said goods.
The Additional Commissioner of Customs (SIIB) Mundra issued to the Appellant a Show Cause Notice dated 30-5-2018 proposing imposition of penalty on the ground that prior to 28-4-2015, “Urea whether or not in aqueous solution” was allowed to be imported only by STEs under Heading No. 3102 1000 of the ITC (HS) Policy 2009 – 2015 and that since the Bills of Entry were filed by the Appellant after purchasing Urea on High Seas from STE, such an import cannot be said to be by the STE but by the High Seas Buyer who files the Bill of Entry, and further that permission dated 15-5-2013 granted by Government of India was only for domestic purchase of Urea from STE and hence Urea so imported is in contravention of the provisions of Foreign Trade Policy and is therefore liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act 1962.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
