2026-VIL-950-CESTAT-ALH-CU

CUSTOMS CESTAT Cases

Customs - Provisional Release, Misclassification of Imported Goods – Respondent imported powdered latex examination gloves classified under CTH 40151900, whereas the Department contended that the correct classification should be CTH 40151200 - Whether the provisional release of goods should be denied based on alleged misclassification when there exists no differential duty liability and no restriction on the imported goods – HELD - Even if the contention of the Department regarding misclassification is accepted, there exists no differential duty involved nor any restriction imposed on the imported goods - The issue in the present case relates to provisional release of the imported goods and not to the correctness of classification. The misclassification, when it does not result in duty evasion or financial loss to the exchequer, cannot constitute a ground for denying provisional release – The appeal of the Department is dismissed and the imported goods are directed to be released forthwithrnrnCompliance with Labelling Requirements under Medical Devices Rules, 2017 - Whether goods can be withheld for provisional release on the ground of non-compliance with labelling requirements when labels are found affixed on bulk packaging – HELD - Since the gloves were imported in bulk in plastic bags on which labelling was duly done, there exists no requirement for pasting any label on individual gloves. The test report relied upon by the Department was based on samples drawn from individual plastic bags where labelling was affixed. The re-examination conducted after the commissioner's order confirmed that labels were affixed on bulk packing. The contention of the Department that conditions of labelling were not fulfilled lacks merit and cannot be sustained - The labelling objection is rejected and the appeal is dismissed.rnrnRestriction on Import through Non-Notified Port under Rule 43A of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 - Whether the restriction under Rule 43A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 applies when goods, though discharged at a notified port, are cleared at a non-notified customs station – HELD - The goods imported by sea into India are to be treated as imported through the port where they entered India (Nhava Sheva), not through the inland Customs station where they are subsequently cleared - Since the bill of lading clearly indicates Nhava Sheva as the port of discharge and it is a notified port, the respondent has not violated the port restriction provided under Rule 43A. Furthermore, the alleged violation of importing goods through a non-notified port cannot constitute a ground for denying provisional release when all other statutory conditions stand fulfilled - The contention of the Department regarding import through non-notified port is rejected and the appeal is dismissed.rnrnNecessity of No Objection Certificate from CDSCO for Provisional Release - Whether goods can be withheld from provisional release solely on the ground that No Objection Certificate from CDSCO has not been obtained when all other statutory requirements are fulfilled – HELD - The test report of CDSCO has not raised or flagged any objection to the goods except for labelling, which has already been considered and addressed. Furthermore, on earlier occasions under similar bills of entry, similar goods were released for home consumption, demonstrating that the absence of No Objection Certificate when all statutory conditions are satisfied cannot be a basis for denying provisional release. The Department has failed to produce any evidence as to how the release of goods will pose risk to public health, and the goods being Class A devices fall under low risk category - The contention of the Department regarding the necessity of No Objection Certificate is rejected and the appeal is dismissed.

Create Account



Log In



Forgot Password


Please Note: This facility is only for Subscribing Members.

Email this page



Feedback this page