In Customs Appeal No.2188 of 2010 -CESTAT- DLF Southern Towns Pvt. Ltd. found guilty of violating Import Policy, faces confiscation& penalty under Customs Act&Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act: CESTAT (Bangalore)
Members P.A. Augustian (Judicial) & R. Bhagya Devi (Technical) [10-07-2023]

Read Order: DLF Southern Towns Pvt. Ltd v. The Commissioner of Custom

Chahat Varma

New Delhi, July 17, 2023: In a recent ruling, the Bangalore bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal has held that DLF Southern Towns Pvt. Ltd. (appellant) had violated the conditions of the Import Policy and failed to comply with the conditions of Notification No.29/2010. As a result, the imported goods were deemed liable for confiscation and the appellant was held liable for penalty.

The issue involved in the present case was that the appellant had filed Bills of Entry for the clearance of ordinary Portland Cement from Pakistan, claiming the benefit of 4% Special Additional Duty (SAD) exemption provided under Notification No.29/2010. This exemption was applicable to prepackaged bags intended for retail sale. However, during the verification process, it was discovered that the details of the importer were not available on the packages. The appellant later admitted that the goods were purchased on a high sea sale agreement and only upon examination did they realize that the cement bags did not bear the importer's name. Further, the Custom House Agent (CHA), who had appeared on behalf of the importer, had declared that the imports were for their own consumption and the goods were not meant for retail sale. Based on these findings, the Commissioner concluded that the import violated policy provisions, making the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, and Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act. The importer was also held liable for a penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.

The two-member bench of P.A. Augustian (Judicial) and R. Bhagya Devi (Technical) referred to the case of Creative Enterprise vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva [LQ/CESTAT/2019/67], wherein it was observed that the appellant had not provided any evidence to demonstrate that the imported goods were intended for retail sale, thereby disqualifying them from the exemption.

Based on the findings of the Commissioner and the decision of the Tribunal, the bench upheld the impugned order and dismissed the appeal.