Page 211 - ELT_15th May 2020_VOL 372_Part 4th

2020 ] RADHE EXIM PVT. LTD. v. COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, AHMEDABAD 601

said Bill of Entry was assessed on second check. During the course of assessment
by the Appraising Officer, it was noticed that the imported items were “20MM
Used Tyre Rubber Shreds” which is restricted item and import of such item are
allowed only under license issued by the DGFT.
2. In view of above it was contended that since the appellant did not
possess the license the goods were imported in contravention of the import poli-
cy issued by the DGFT. Accordingly the adjudicating authority confiscated the
goods with option to redeem on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 2,50,000/-
under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty of Rs. 1,35,000 was im-
posed under Section 122(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Being aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, appellant filed appeal be-
fore the Commissioner (Appeals) who dismissed the appeal holding that there is
no infirmity in the Order-in-Original. Therefore, the present appeal.
4. Shri Amal Dave, Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appel-
lant submits that at the time of filing Bill of Entry i.e. 8-9-2017, the appellant were
in possession of license issued by DGFT on 1-3-2017 therefore, there is no reason
to confiscate the goods for want of license. He submits that the entire case was
decided on the basis that the Bill of Lading date is 4-8-2016 which is a date of im-
port. At that time there was no license, therefore, the goods were confiscated. In
this regard he submits that the import completed only at the time of filing of Bill
of Entry therefore, date of Bill of Lading is not relevant. In support of his submis-
sion he placed reliance on the following judgments :
• Extracts of Foreign Trade Policy
• Interia Impex v. Commissioner of Customs, Faridabad, 2009 (239) E.L.T.
71 (Tri.-Del.)
• Jasmat Parshottam Ganesh v. State of Gujarat, 1995 (76) E.L.T. 548
(Guj.)
• Saci Allied Production Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex., Meerut, 2005
(183) E.L.T. 225 (S.C.)
• Reckitt & Colman of India Ltd. v. Collector of Central Excise, 1996 (88)
E.L.T. 641 (S.C.)
• Koluthara Exports Ltd. v. Commissioner of C. Ex. & Cus., Erankulam-II,
2017 (351) E.L.T. 191 (Ker.)
5. Shri G. Jha, Learned Superintendent (Authorized Representative)
appearing on behalf of the Revenue reiterates the finding of the impugned order.
He relied upon the following judgments :-
• Royal Impex v. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai-II, 2019 (366) E.L.T.
820 (Mad.)
• Ahmedabad Tribunal Order No. A/10003/2019, dated 2-1-2019
[2019 (366) E.L.T. 176 (Tri. - Ahmd.)].
6. I heard both the sides and perused the records. I find that there is no
dispute about the dates that the goods were shipped under Bill of Lading dated
4-8-2016. Bill of Entry on arrival of the goods was filed on 8-9-2017. At the time of
filling of Bill of Entry the appellant was in possession of license issued by DGFT.
As per the various judgments cited by Learned Counsel I am of the view that at
the time of import the appellant should possess a valid license, if it is required as
per the policy. In the present case though the Bill of Entry date is 8-9-2017 but it
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th May 2020  211