2002 (8) TMI 653 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported newsprint with an option for re-export and redemption fine.
2. Justification of imposition of redemption fine for re-export.
3. Bona fides of the appellants in importing newsprint with less mechanical woodpulp content.
4. Comparison with previous legal decisions regarding imposition of redemption fine.

Analysis:

1. The Commissioner of Customs confiscated the newsprint imported by the appellant company with an option for re-export upon payment of redemption fine. Three bills of entry were involved, each with a different redemption fine amount. No penalty was imposed on the appellants due to their bona fides.

2. The appellants entered into a contract for the supply of newsprint with a specific mechanical woodpulp content. Upon discovering that the actual content was lower than specified, they requested re-export. The appellants argued that since they did not intend to import the wrong goods and had detected the discrepancy, there was no justification for imposing a redemption fine for re-export.

3. The consultant for the appellants highlighted that the Commissioner did not doubt their bona fides, as evidenced by the absence of a penalty. The appellants had received a certificate from the supplier confirming the higher mechanical woodpulp content. Citing legal precedents, the consultant argued that imposing a redemption fine for re-export in such circumstances was not warranted.

4. After considering submissions from both sides and reviewing the impugned Order, the Tribunal found that the Revenue did not allege intentional importation of newsprint with lower mechanical woodpulp content. Given the absence of a penalty and the appellants' bona fides, the Tribunal referred to previous Supreme Court and Tribunal decisions to set aside the imposition of the redemption fine, allowing the appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal overturned the imposition of the redemption fine on the appellants for re-exporting the newsprint due to the absence of mala fide intentions and the acknowledgment of their bona fides by the Commissioner. The decision was in line with established legal precedents regarding similar cases, ensuring a fair outcome for the appellant company.