Case Law Details
Commissioner of Customs Vs Galaxy Surfactants Ltd (Bombay High Court)
Bombay High Court held that there is no transfer of property in goods when furniture manufactured is transferred from one unit to other. Hence, there would be no violation of condition (i) or (vii) of the Notification No. 30/97-CUS dated 1 April 1997 as there is no transfer in violation of the actual user condition.
Facts-
In the present case, the Respondent had obtained five advance licences with actual user condition. 83,128 kgs of imported Lauryl alcohol was received in the Respondent’s M-3 Unit Tarapur instead of its V-23 Taloja Unit. Pursuant to intelligence received by the Department that Lauryl alcohol imported by the Respondent under the Advance Licence Scheme by availing exemption under the said Notification No. 30/97-CUS dated 1 April 1997 had been directed or transferred in contravention of the conditions of the said exemption Notification, the Appellant issued a show cause notice dated 20 September 2004 seeking explanation from the Respondent to show cause as to why the duty exempted material of 83,128 kgs of Lauryl alcohol imported under the licence should not be confiscated under Section 111 of the Customs Act. And since the goods were not available for confiscation, as to why the Respondent should not be held liable to pay fine in lieu of confiscation along with the customs duty on the material and why further penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act should not be imposed upon the Respondent and on Shri. Sadanand Shetty, the Senior executive of the firm.
The Commissioner of Customs (Export Promotion) confirmed the demand. Whereas, CESTAT allowed the Appeal of the Respondent and set aside the order in Original. Against the order of the CESTAT, the Commissioner of Customs (EP) has preferred these Appeals.
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
Author Bio
