AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
None present for the appellant nor there is any adjournment application.
In the absence of appellant assistance of Revenue was taken and also the ground of appeal of the appellant perused. The goods imported by the
appellant is stated in para 1.1 of the adjudication order and that does not remain in dispute. The dispute is only of usage of the goods in this case.
Revenue found out that the goods imported was not merely GPS but also a tracker which is fitted into a vehicle to know the direction at any point of
time and also to receive the data through GPS receiver. The goods so imported had the characteristics of much more than the mere GPS. The system
serves the purpose of relaying/ transmitting data about itself, vehicle owner etc. This enables an owner of the vehicle to be aware of the fuel
consumption, Mileage, tampering and accidents etc. The goods imported being of such peculiar and special nature, Revenue opined that such goods
cannot be imported without license from DGFT being a sensitive equipment. The appellant had not obtained such license from that authority to import.
At the customs clearance stage I the appellant also averred that it was not aware of the licensing requirement nor it was knowing the imported
goods were restricted goods. It requested the Customs Authority to allow them to re-export the imported goods on the ground of prayed that it will not
commit such mistake in future. Customs authority found that not only the goods were mis-declared but also without license. Therefore, confiscation
thereof was ordered. That gave rise to further consequence of redemption fine and penalty.
Before Id. Commissioner (Appeals), the appellant could not succeed both on merit as well as on the technicality aspect. The licensing requirement
could not be pleaded to be irrelevant. Therefore, Id. Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the adjudication order with consequence flowing there from. We
have perused thoroughly the nature and character goods imported and also defence led by appellant as to the requirement of the license from DGFT.
It was established fact on record that the goods were restricted goods and were subject to licensing regulation. We have also perused the photographs
of the goods available in the catalogue submitted by the appellant and for ming part of appeal record. We do not find any of the observation of the
authorities below to be irrelevant. There is no evidence of innocence of appellant. It was merely a crocodile cry of no importation in future when
caught red handed by customs. Therefore there is no other go than to uphold the adjudication finding, conclusion as well as appellate decision.
Accordingly appeal is dismissed.
[Dictated & Pronounced in the open Court].