News Update

India, China hold fresh dialogue for complete disengagement on Western borders: MEAThakur says India is prepared for 2036 OlympicsCBDT substitutes Form in ITR-5EV Revolution: Lessons for India to learn from US and China!London court green-signals auction of luxury apartment of fugitive Nirav ModiGovt consults RBI; finalises borrowing plan for first half of FY 2024-25Gadkari says Farmers’ protest is politically-motivatedVP calls upon women entrepreneurs to be 'Vocal for Local'America offers USD 10 mn bounty for information on ‘Blackcat’ hackers after UnitedHealth gets hitI-T- The order of the ITSC can only be reopened in cases of fraud or misrepresentation: HC8 persons including Hezbollah militants killed in Israeli strike on LebanonI-T - Income so surrendered on account of investment in excess stock during course of survey cannot be brought to tax under deeming provisions of section 69B: ITATMacron pillories EU-South Africa trade deal; calls it ‘really bad’ in BrazilI-T-Power of revision need not be exercised where facts do not reveal any lack of enquiry by AO into relevant issue & when twin requirements of order being erroneous as well as prejudicial to Revenue's interests, are not satisfied: ITATThailand’s Lower House okays Bill to legitimise same-sex marriageI-T -Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) cannot be imposed where an assessee claims deduction u/s 80P while being ineligible therefor, but being under the bona fide impression of being eligible for such benefit : ITATYellen warns China against clean energy dumpingCus - Enhancement of declared value of imported goods is not tenable, where Department adduces no material to show how the enhanced value was computed & where no cogent rationale is made out for rejecting declared value: CESTATMilky Way’s central black hole - Twisted magnetic field observedCus - Assessee has not proved beyond reasonable doubt that goods in question imported under air way bills/bills of entry were in fact filed by him and hence the only natural corollary available to Revenue is confiscation of same: CESTATSmall investors help Trump Media’s valuation skyrocket to USD 13 billionST - When the facts are in the knowledge of department subsequent SCN alleging suppression cannot be issued and entire demand was found beyond normal period of limitation: CESTATFM Nirmala Sitharaman declines to contest LS elections as she has no fundsST - Tripura State Rifles not required to pay Service Tax under heading of Security Services, as it is is not engaged in business of providing security services: CESTATJustice Ritu Raj Awasthi joins as Judicial member of LokpalCX - Clandestine removal alleged based on consumption of raw inputs and heightened electricity usage - Tax demands based on third party statements but without permitting cross examination of deponents; case remanded to allow this exercise: CESTAT
 
Cus - DGFT notification is a law and not an executive instruction - merely submitting a declaration of end use is not sufficient : HC

By TIOL News Service

CHENNAI, JUNE 27, 2017: WHILE dismissing the appeal of the importer, the CESTAT - 2016-TIOL-531-CESTAT-MAD had inter alia held thus –

Customs - Import of insecticide intended for non-insecticidal purposes - Held import permit/registration must be mandatorily obtained from Registration Committee under Department of Agriculture and Co-operation in compliance with DGFT Notification No. 106/2013/2009-2014 dated 1.1.2015.

The appellant contends that bronopol is imported for non-insecticidal purpose. However, it is found that the appellant is not a manufacturer or actual user or industry but only a merchant trader and there is no evidence to show that said Bronopol insecticide is used for non-insecticidal purpose. Further, as per the DGFT Notification No. 106/2013/2009-2014 dated 1.1.2015, if any insecticide is imported even for non-insecticides purpose, the permission is necessary from the Registration Committee under Department of Agriculture and Co-operation. The notification is issued under section 3 of Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992 read with Foreign Trade Policy 2009 - 2014 which has come into effect from 1.1.2015. Once the DGFT notification stipulates condition of permit for committee, the appellants should have obtained necessary permission from the committee even if it is for non-insecticidal purpose. Therefore, the customs and the importer are bound by this notification issued by DGFT. There is neither any assessment of the Bill of Entry completed nor any order was passed by customs invoking any contraventions of Customs Act, nor the goods were confiscated, or any fine and penalties imposed, the adjudicating authority was right requiring the appellant to produce the necessary permission to assess bill of entry for the release of goods in question. Consequently impugned order upheld and the appeal is dismissed. (Para 5, 6)

The appellant is before the Madras High Court.

It is submitted that vide their letter dated 09.05.2015 the appellant informed that Bronopol is used as non-insecticidal and so the subject goods are exempted from the Insecticides Act, 1968, in terms of Section 38(1)(b) of the said Act.

The High Court, after considering the submissions made by both sides extracted section 38 of the Insecticides Act, the DGFT Notification dated 01.01.2015 and observed –

++ The contention of the appellant that the notification issued under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade Act, is a mere executive instruction and so the said notification would not apply to the appellant company cannot be accepted. In the light of the decision … rendered by the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court [in Union of India vs. Maliakkal Industrial Enterprises ], it has been held that the aforesaid notification issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade is a law and not an executive instruction and the import and export is governed under Section 5 of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992.

Adverting to Section 2 of the Insecticides Act, 1968 titled 'Application of other laws not barred' , the High Court further observed –

+ Imports are governed by other Acts also and the contention of the appellant that Insecticides Act alone is applicable, is not correct.

+ The appellant merely submitting a declaration of the end use that the Bronopol will be used for non-insecticidal purpose is not sufficient and, therefore, exemption under Section 38(1)(b) of the Insecticides Act cannot be applied automatically , to the appellant. The appellant has failed to produce evidence before the authority to establish that the Bronopol will be used for non-insecticidal purpose. In the absence of such evidence, it cannot be construed that the said Bronopol will be used only for non-insecticidal purpose.

+ The notification dated 01.01.2015 issued by the Director General of Foreign Trade clearly states that as per the policy decision even if the import is for non-insecticidal use, permission is necessary from the Registration Committee under the Department of Agriculture and Co-operation and that import cannot be allowed in the absence of the said permit. Hence, the Tribunal has rightly concluded that the appellant company is not entitled to the benefit of Section 38(1)(b) of the Insecticides Act, 1968 and the requirement of getting permission from the Registration Committee under the Department of Agriculture and Co-operation, as per the aforesaid notification has to be complied with , in order to prevent illegal imports of insecticides, under the guise of non-insecticidal use.

Holding that the High Court is not inclined to interfere with the final order passed by the Tribunal, the substantial question of law was answered against the appellant company.

The Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed.

(See 2017-TIOL-1193-HC-MAD-CUS)


POST YOUR COMMENTS
   

AR not Afar by SK Rahman

TIOL Tube Latest

Shri Shailendra Kumar, Trustee, TIOL Trust, giving welcome speech at TIOL Awards 2023




Shri M C Joshi, Former Chairman, CBDT




Address by Shri Buggana Rajendranath, Hon'ble Finance Minister of Andhra Pradesh at TIOL Awards 2023