No Case Is Made Out By Customs For Confiscation Of Goods Meant For Export: CESTAT

The Delhi Bench of the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) has held that a No Objection Certificate (NOC) is not required from the Drug Controller in respect of an export consignment filed for the export of drugs to Liberia.

The bench of Anil Choudhary (a Judicial Member) has observed that the appellant was a genuine manufacturer duly licensed to manufacture and export drugs. Even from the test report of the Central Drugs Standard Control Organization (CDSCO), Mumbai, two of the three drugs, namely B-CO syrup and Sabtron, have been found to be of standard quality.

The appellant is the holder of a license to manufacture drugs with the help of a supporting manufacturer who is named in the license. The appellant sells pharmaceuticals and drugs and mainly exports the goods. The appellant used the EDI system to send a shipping bill to overseas consignor M/s Bunty Pharmaceuticals in Monrovia, Liberia (West Africa).

It appeared to Revenue that there is a legal requirement for the exporter to submit a NOC from the Drug Controller. As directed, the appellant submitted the details to the Drug Inspector, Assistant Drug Controller (ADC), and ICD Pithampur for obtaining a NOC with respect to the six drugs.

The ADC observed that, on inspection, it was found that the name of the manufacturer is mentioned as M/s Medista Overseas, Indore, under a manufacturing license. However, the address of the principal unit, M/s McW Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., Indore, was missing from the drug. On inquiry, Sh. Abhijeet Motiwale, Director of M/s McW Healthcare Pvt. Ltd., stated that these drugs have not been manufactured and supplied by them to M/s Medista Overseas.

The export consignment was seized, and it appeared to Revenue that the goods were liable for confiscation.

The appellant contended that, as per Section 23 of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, the prescribed procedure for declaring a product spurious has not been carried out by the Drug Inspector, and thus the findings are not conclusive and hence unreliable. The report of the government analyst was not brought to record, and hence such an opinion was fit to be rejected. The Drug Controller has not taken steps to declare the goods spurious and initiate confiscation proceedings. Thus, the whole allegation is based on assumptions and presumptions. No case was made for claiming a false product as the goods had been made in India for the purpose of export.

The tribunal found that the whole proceeding by the Customs Authority for confiscation was vitiated.

Case Title: M/s Medista Overseas Versus Commissioner, Central Excise & Central Goods and Service Tax

Citation: Customs Appeal No. 50976 of 2021-SM

Date: 10.01.2023

Counsel For Appellant: Advocate Rajnish Kumar Verma

Counsel For Respondent: Authorised Representative Tamanna Alam

Click Here To Read The Order