2001 (11) TMI 343 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
Whether the structural steel imported is liable to confiscation under the Customs Act and whether penalty is imposable.

Detailed Analysis:

Issue 1: Liability of Structural Steel for Confiscation and Imposition of Penalty
The appeal involved a dispute regarding the liability of structural steel imported by M/s. Shinna Marketing Pvt. Ltd. under the Customs Act. The appellant argued that they imported the steel in compliance with the relevant policies and licenses, emphasizing that the steel was sourced from a reputable British firm. They contended that the steel was not liable for confiscation as the specific import code indicated no prohibition on importing structural steel from any source. Additionally, they highlighted that the condition requiring exporters to be registered with the Bureau of Indian Standards (BIS) was not explicitly mentioned in their advance license or the classification guidelines. The appellant relied on previous tribunal decisions to support their argument against confiscation and penalty imposition.

Issue 2: Compliance with Notification No. 44 (RE-2000) Requirement
The respondent, represented by Shri Ashok Kumar, argued that the import of structural steel was subject to compliance with Notification No. 44 (RE-2000), which mandated manufacturers/exporters to register with BIS for specific products listed in the classification. The failure to comply with this mandatory condition rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The respondent emphasized that the condition was not a mere technical requirement but a legal obligation for lawful importation. It was highlighted that the steel supplier, M/s. Corus U.K. Ltd., was not registered with BIS, indicating non-compliance with the notification.

Judgment and Conclusion
After considering the arguments from both parties, the tribunal upheld the confiscation of the imported goods due to non-compliance with the BIS registration requirement as per Notification No. 44 (RE-2000). The tribunal clarified that the condition imposed by the notification was mandatory and not a technicality, emphasizing that adherence to such conditions was essential for legal importation. Despite upholding the confiscation, the tribunal reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 16 lakhs to Rs. 5 lakhs and the penalty from Rs. 10 lakhs to Rs. 2 lakhs, considering the circumstances of the case. The appeal was disposed of with the revised penalty amounts.