Tinna Rubber & Infrastructure Ltd. Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Allahabad)
CESTAT Allahabad held that material imported based MOEF permission by a company cannot be diverted to any other unit for any purpose other than one stated in permission letter. Accordingly, goods liable for confiscation u/s. 111(d) of the Customs Act on account of diversion.
Facts- Appellant imported two consignments of old and used cut tiers in 2 & . 3 Pcs. (arisen from old/used tires) for clearance to their Pan pat Unit. These B/Es were assessed and marked for examination with directions to ensure that the importer is an actual user and clearance of the goods was allowed provisionally.
The importer produced DGFT License and MOEF Office Memorandum vide which ‘No Objection’ had been issued to M/sienna Rubber & Infrastructure Ltd., New Delhi for import of 5000 M.T. of tires scrap for manufacture of Crumb Rubber Modifier (CRM) and Crumb Rubber Modified Bitumen (CRMB) for their Wada plant. As the B/Es were filed for their Pan pat plant in Haryana instead of Wada plant in Maharashtra, as per the conditions of MOEF O.M., the imported goods could be used only in Wada plant, not elsewhere and in case of otherwise use, the said goods were liable to be re-exported to the foreign supplier at the cost of the importer.
