THIAGARAJAR MILLS LTD Vs. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the Order -in -Original No. 21/98, dated 13 -10 -1998 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Trichy, wherein the items imported have been ordered to be confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 and the redemption allowed on fine of Rs. 5 lacs and penalty of Rs. 2 lacs has also been imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The only ground for doing so was that the machines after import thereof under Customs Notification No. 110/95 -Cus., dated 5 -6 -1995 as amended, were not installed in the specified premises due to objections raised by the State Pollution Control Board authorities and instead, were installed in a sister concern. This was against the EPCG scheme sanctioned by the DGFT for this import.

(2.) HEARD Shri K.P. Jagadeesan, learned Advocate for the appellants, who submits that when the problem associated with the objection of the Pollution Control Board authorities was represented before the licensing authority namely Office of the Director General of Foreign Trade, ultimately they succeeded in getting post facto approval of installation of the imported machines in their sister concern and a revised LUT was also accepted by the authorities concerned. Thus, all the conditions of the Customs Notification noted above are therefore, now satisfied by this post facto regularisation of the matter by the licensing authority. Under these circumstances, the machinery imported has been regularised under the EPCG scheme and the goods are not liable to confiscation merely because no prior permission of Assistant Commissioner of Customs was taken to do so.

(3.) HEARD Smt. Aruna Gupta, learned JDR, who submits that the fact of unilaterally shifting the machines and getting them installed in another place, which was not authorised by EPCG scheme at the time of import was not brought to the notice of the Assistant Commissioner of Customs and the above noted Customs Notification was therefore, violated by the importer. Hence, the learned Commissioner has correctly confiscated and imposed penalties. She also submits that even at the time of issue of show cause notice, the importer appellants did not have this permission of DGFT office.