Sai Enterprises Vs Commissioner of Customs (CESTAT Delhi)
Conclusion: Goods (tyres) imported by assessee was without any BIS markings being in violation of the statutory provisions were not permissible to be imported, and hence they were liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Customs Act.
Held: Assessee was engaged in importing and trading on “stock lot tyres of various makes and sizes, including “off-road tyres. It made an import of 3,066 tyres, declared “Off the Road Tyres,” which were later found to be passenger car radial and commercial truck tyres without mandatory BIS certifications. It was to be noted that discrepancies were found by the customs authorities in the declared and actual quantities. It was noted that although the appellant had declared 1,694 tyres in their import documents, investigations revealed 2,429 tyres. Interestingly, during the inquiry proceedings, the proprietor admitted that the misdeclaration was intentional to evade customs duty. The tyres’ value was assessed by the officials at Rs. 1.92 Crore and noted that as their import was made without BIS certification, it came under the category of “prohibited goods” under Section 2( 33 ) of the Customs Act. Adjudicating authority ordered absolute confiscation of the goods under Section 111 of the Customs Act, due to misdeclaration, violation of import norms, and public safety concerns. It further imposed penalties, which totaled to Rs. 35 lakh, on assessee. It was held that as per Section 2(33) of the Act, ‘prohibited goods’ includes ‘restricted goods in respect of which the conditions have not been fulfilled. Secondly, the owner or the person from whom the goods have been seized, cannot claim as a matter of right, that the “prohibited goods‟ must be allowed to be redeemed. There was no reason to interfere with the impugned order.
