2025-VIL-906-GUJ-CU

CUSTOMS High Court Cases

Customs - Confiscation of prohibited goods, Mis-declaration, High Sea Sale – Respondent-EOU imported 100% Polyester Dyed Piled Fabrics claiming exemption under Notification No. 53/1997-CUS. The Department alleged that the goods were actually scarves and not dupattas as declared, and that Respondents had acquired the goods locally and sold them in the Domestic Tariff Area (DTA), misusing the EOU status - Whether the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 on the ground that they were prohibited goods; and whether the goods became prohibited goods in terms of Section 111(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 when they were sought to be cleared claiming exemption under Notification No. 53/1997-Cus – HELD - The goods in question were not prohibited goods under the Customs Act or any other law. The reasoning given by the adjudicating authority for considering the goods as prohibited goods under Section 111(d) of the Act, read with Rules 11, 14(1) and 14(2) of the Foreign Trade (Regulations) Rules, 1993, cannot be accepted as the said goods were not prohibited goods. The violation of the Rules would not make the goods prohibited under Section 111(d) of the Act - The Tribunal correctly held that since the goods were not prohibited under the Customs Act or any other law, they could not be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Act - The mere fact that the goods were sought to be cleared claiming exemption under Notification No. 53/1997-Cus did not make them prohibited goods in terms of Section 111(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal was justified in its finding that the goods did not become prohibited goods - The Tribunal's decision to set aside the order of confiscation and imposition of penalty is upheld. The appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page