2007 (12) TMI 33 - HC - Customs

Confiscation - goods when imported their shell life had not expired - on account of continuous non release of the goods that the shell life of the goods has expired. This cannot be held against the petitioner if otherwise the goods can be reprocessed - petition is partly allowed - confiscation of the goods is set aside provided the petitioners pay the redemption fine and penalty - goods can be cleared for home consumption provided the reprocessed goods confirm to the prescribed standards

Summary

Issues:
1. Interpretation of a previous judgment in Custom Appeal No.65 of 2007 regarding the shell life of imported goods.
2. Consideration of the expiration of the shell life of the goods and its impact on the current petition.
3. Decision on the confiscation of goods and imposition of redemption fine and penalty.
4. Clearance of reprocessed goods for home consumption based on prescribed standards.

Analysis:
The judgment by the High Court of Bombay, delivered by F.I. Rebello and R.S. Mohite, JJ., addresses the principal issue of interpreting a previous judgment in Custom Appeal No.65 of 2007 concerning the shell life of imported goods. The court notes that the shell life of the goods in question had expired due to the continuous non-release of the goods, which is highlighted by the respondents. However, it is established that at the time of import, the goods' shell life had not expired. The court emphasizes that if the goods were already expired at the time of import, the previous judgment would not apply to such goods for reprocessing purposes.

Regarding the expiration of the shell life of the goods and its relevance to the current petition, the court rules that the expiry of the shell life due to non-release cannot be held against the petitioner if the goods can be reprocessed. The judgment clarifies that if the goods were not expired at the time of import, the possibility of reprocessing should be considered based on the facts of the case.

In the decision on the confiscation of goods, the court partially allows the writ petition by setting aside the confiscation, provided that the petitioners pay the redemption fine and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority. The goods can then be cleared for home consumption, subject to the reprocessed goods conforming to the prescribed standards. However, if the reprocessed goods do not meet the prescribed standards, they shall be confiscated.

In conclusion, the court issues directions to dispose of the present petition by allowing the writ partially, setting aside the confiscation of goods upon payment of fines, and imposing conditions for the clearance of reprocessed goods based on prescribed standards. The rule is made absolute accordingly, with no order as to costs.