2003 (3) TMI 386 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Classification of imported lighting equipment.
2. Requirement of import license.
3. Confiscation and redemption fine.
4. Imposition of penalty.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Classification of Imported Lighting Equipment:
The primary issue was whether the imported lighting equipment for cinematographic studios should be classified under Customs Tariff Heading (CTH) 9010.90 as "parts and accessories of apparatus and equipment for photographic (including cinematographic) laboratories" or under CTH 9405.40 as "other electric lamps and lighting fittings."

The appellants argued that the goods fell under CTH 9010.90, making them importable without a license. They contended that the equipment was specifically designed for use in cinematographic studios and not as general consumer goods. The department, however, classified the goods under CTH 9405.40, which covers electric lamps and lighting fittings, thus requiring a specific import license.

2. Requirement of Import License:
The department held that the imported items required a specific import license under CTH 9405.40. The appellants admitted to a misunderstanding regarding the necessity of a license and expressed their inability to obtain one, seeking leniency.

3. Confiscation and Redemption Fine:
The Commissioner of Customs ordered the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option to redeem them on payment of a fine of Rs. 7,00,000/-. The appellants contested this, arguing that their classification under CTH 9010.90 was correct, and hence, the goods should not have been confiscated.

The tribunal reviewed the tariff entries and concluded that the goods were indeed lighting equipment more appropriately classified under CTH 9405.40. However, considering the nature of the goods and the appellants' bona fide belief, the tribunal reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 2.5 lakhs.

4. Imposition of Penalty:
A penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- was imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The appellants argued that there was no mens rea (criminal intent) as they genuinely believed the goods were correctly classified under CTH 9010.90. The tribunal agreed with the appellants, citing the decision in CC, New Delhi v. Timetech Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., where a penalty was not imposed due to a difference in classification opinion. Consequently, the tribunal set aside the penalty.

Separate Judgments:

Majority Opinion:
The majority of the tribunal (Member (T) and the Third Member) held that the goods were correctly classified under CTH 9405.40, requiring a specific import license. They agreed to reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 2.5 lakhs and set aside the penalty, partially allowing the appeal.

Dissenting Opinion:
One member (Member (J)) disagreed, arguing that the goods should be classified under CTH 9010.90, making them importable without a license. He proposed allowing the appeal with consequential relief, setting aside the confiscation, fine, and penalty entirely.

Conclusion:
In terms of the majority order, the appeal was partially allowed by reducing the redemption fine to Rs. 2.5 lakhs and setting aside the penalty, while upholding the confiscation of the goods under CTH 9405.40.