By TIOL News Service

MUMBAI, OCT 05, 2014: THE appellant filed Bill of Entry for the clearance of "Sodium Cyanide" imported from China. Since they did not produce the Central Insecticides Board (CIB) certificate as mandated in terms of Section 3(e) of the Insecticide Act, 1968, the adjudicating officer confiscated the goods valued at Rs.28,74,242/- u/s 111(d) with redemption fine of Rs.2.50 lakhs & penalty of Rs.25,000/- u/s 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal on the ground that the provisions of Insecticides Act and Rules nowhere state that the provisions shall not apply to the Insecticides imported for the purpose of re-export.

Being aggrieved, the importer is before the CESTAT.

After considering the rival submissions, the SMB held -

"6. …, I hold that the provisions of the Insecticides Act provide for registration being taken by any person desiring to import or manufacture any insecticide, may apply to the Registration Committee for the importation of such insecticide. It is further provided that where any person referred to in the preceding proviso fails to make an application under that proviso within the period specified (seventeen months), he may make such application at any time thereafter on payment of a penalty as specified. Further Section 17 of the Insecticides Act has provided no person shall, himself or by any person on his behalf, import or manufacture any insecticide except in accordance with the condition on which it was registered under the Insecticides Act, the Legislation has used the word manufacture i.e. manufacture or home consumption under Section 17 of the Insecticides Act, read with para 2.36 of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014. It is very clear that restricted goods may be imported under Customs Bond for the purpose of re-export, the provision of the Insecticides Act is not attracted. I follow the view taken by the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of Maliakkal Industry Enterprises (supra), which is also affirmed by clarification dated 23.06.2003, issued by DGFT, Ministry of Commerce & Industry ."

In fine, the appeal was allowed with consequential relief.

(See 2014-TIOL-1916-CESTAT-MUM)