2011 (5) TMI 95 - AT - Customs

Confiscated goods - Re-exported - Imported goods were not fulfilling the provisions of imported policy of ITC and Food Adulteration Rules 1955 - the original adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of imported and gave the permission to re-export the goods on payment of redemption fine and imposed penalty - Revenue contention that the goods liable for confiscation cannot be re-exported - Held that The apex court has dealt with the similar case Commissioner of Customs Kolkata vs. Grand Prime Limited (2003 -TMI - 46603 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA) held that the exporter had the title of the goods and was entitled to re-export is not sustainable - There is no provision for re-export in such cases - Hence allow the appeal of the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported goods and permission for re-export.
2. Interpretation of labelling provisions under PFA Rules, 1955 and General Notes of Import Policy of ITC.
3. Legal precedent on re-export of confiscated goods.

Analysis:

The case involved a bill of entry filed for the import of beverages that were found to be non-compliant with labelling provisions under the PFA Rules, 1955, and the General Notes of Import Policy of ITC. The original adjudicating authority ordered the confiscation of the imported beverages, with permission for re-export upon payment of a redemption fine and imposition of a penalty. The Revenue challenged this order, arguing that goods liable for confiscation cannot be re-exported. The Commissioner (Appeal) dismissed the appeal, leading to further proceedings.

The main issue before the Tribunal was whether the confiscated goods could be allowed to be re-exported. The Tribunal noted that the imported goods did not comply with labelling provisions, as per the test report. The Revenue cited legal precedents to support their argument that goods liable for confiscation cannot be re-exported. The Tribunal referred to the case law of Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata vs. Grand Prime Limited and M/s. Changzhou Yongfa Corduroy Company Limited vs. Commissioner of Customs, Bangalore, highlighting that goods under import liable for confiscation due to mis-declaration cannot be re-exported.

The Tribunal, in line with the legal precedents, rejected the contention that the confiscated goods could be re-exported. Citing the decision in Commissioner of Customs, Kolkata vs. Grand Prime Limited, the Tribunal emphasized that there is no provision for re-exporting goods imported in violation and subsequently confiscated. The Tribunal found the arguments of the respondents lacking legal support and, therefore, not acceptable. Consequently, the Tribunal allowed the appeal of the Revenue, leading to the disposal of the appeal and stay petition.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the imported goods and denied permission for re-export, based on the non-compliance with labelling provisions and legal precedents prohibiting the re-export of goods liable for confiscation.