Page 296 - ELT_15th June 2020_VOL 372_Part 6th

942 EXCISE LAW TIMES [ Vol. 372
Hot-rolled steel plates (non-alloy) - Contemporary imports by PSU when
not reliable evidence for enhancement of value - See under VALUATION
(CUSTOMS) ..................................... 279
HSD blended with small quantity of multifunctional additives to make
branded HSD, activity not amounting to manufacture - See under
MANUFACTURE .................................. 137
Human hair - Dressed human hair, Classification of - Test from CSFL
laboratory confirming that human hair, ‘worked’ and hence rightly
classifiable under RITC 6703 - Assessee exporting identical goods since
2011 bearing same description and no evidence brought forth to establish
any change in description warranting change in classification of
impugned goods - Human hair exported rightly classifiable under RITC
6703 and not under RITC 05010010 - Commissioner (Appeals) order set
aside — In Re : DCS International Trading Pvt. Ltd. (G.O.I.) ................ 740
IE Code misuse established, penalty on IE Code owner imposable but
reduced - See under PENALTY .......................... 881
Ilmenite import - Mines and Minerals (Development and Regulation) Act,
1957 is not applicable - See under EXIM ...................... 654
Import of goods at port not authorised for such goods - Transshipment to
authorised port - Beauty and Make-up preparations imported via port
not authorised for import of such goods - Transshipment of imported
goods to ports where import of such goods allowed - Goods imported by
assessee were not banned goods - Confiscation of the same set aside
along with redemption fine and penalty - Department to allow
transshipment of said goods from ICD, Dadri to ICD, Tughlakabad or
ICD, Patparganj suitable to Customs organization at cost borne by
importer - On transshipment, Customs Authorities to examine subject
goods for clearance to home consumption - Sections 111, 112 and 125 of
Customs Act, 1962 — Zerogravity Aesthetics LLP v. Commissioner of Customs (Noida),
Dadri (Tri. - All.) .................................... 303
— of Motor Ship - Demand - Shipping vessel imported in 2012 not included
in Import General Manifest (IGM) - Also, bill of entry not filed at time of
importation - Penalties imposed for non-inclusion of vessel in IGM and
non-filing of bill of entry, deposited and manual bill of entry, seeking
procedural regularisation of import of vessel, as on 28-5-2012, at ‘Nil’ rate
of Customs duty, filed on 10-7-2018 - Petitioner arguing that deposit of
penalty absolves petitioner from discharging all of its liabilities in respect
of import of vessel into Indian waters - HELD : Order imposing penalties
itself stating that said order issued without prejudice to any other action
as may be initiated, pending against importers under any other provision
of Customs Act, 1962 or any other law for time being in force - Legal
obligation to file bill of entry even if vessel on import into Indian waters
exempt from duty, not in dispute - Imposition of penalty or direction to
importer to pay charges to be for contravention of provisions of Sections
30 and 46 of Customs Act, 1962 and not for absolving or discharging
importer from liability to present bill of entry in prescribed form -
Therefore, petitioner’s contention that once penalty imposed and
deposited, petitioner not required to present manual bill of entry and,
therefore, request of petitioner for withdrawal of manual bill of entry,
presented for regularisation, ought to be considered, needs no
countenance - Section 17 of Customs Act, 1962 — Great Eastern Shipping
Company Ltd. v. Deputy Commr. of Cus. Import (A.P.) .................... 559
— under Advance Authorization - Demand - Debit made in valid Advance
Authorizations at the time of imports but the Advance Authorizations
EXCISE LAW TIMES  15th June 2020  296