MODERN HOSIERY MILLS PVT. LTD Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN the impugned order, the Ld. Commissioner held that "however, on perusal of L/C submitted by the party, the expiry date for shipment is 30.4.99 and the goods do not appear to have been shipped before that, as the date of landing is 7.5.99, the goods, therefore, have become restricted as per para 5.3 of EXIM Policy and are liable to confiscation under Section 111 of Customs Act, 1962".

(2.) ARGUING the case, Shri Ashutos, Ld. Counsel submits that the appellant imported old, used and reconditioned machines (second -hand knitting machines) which is within original validity of irrevocable Letter of Credit dated 10.3.99; that this Letter of Credit was valid upto 15.5.99. He submits that with effect from 1.4.99, EXIM Policy was amended under which import of old, used and reconditioned machinery became a restricted item. He submits that the goods in question were booked on 28.4.99 as per Airway Bill but due to mistake of the Airlines, the shipment could not be loaded as the same was not traceable in their go down and the shipment could only arrive in Delhi on 7.5.99. He submits that there was no mistake on the part of the importer and since the importer's action was bona fide and Letter of Credit covering the cost of the goods was opened much before the date of restriction, therefore, imposition of penalty and redemption fine on the goods was not warranted. He submits that in any case, the redemption fine and the penalty on the importer/the appellant are on the very high side. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order may be set aside and the Appeal may be allowed.

(3.) SHRI Mewa Singh, Ld. SDR submits that Ld. Commissioner under the Order -in -Original has clearly brought out that the goods have been shipped after the date of expiry of the Letter of Credit and therefore, it was a violation of the EXIM Policy for the relevant period. He submits that the authorities below have rightly confiscated the goods; that the redemption fine was not on high side and the penalty was also nominal. He, therefore, submits that the Appeal has no merit and the same may be rejected.