2019 (4) TMI 926 - AT - Central Excise

Absolute Confiscation - prohibited item/area - Cosmetics - stoppage of imports at Goa - ex-parte decision - principles of Natural Justice - HELD THAT - Goa is not an approved place of entry for the import of cosmetics is not in doubt. Notwithstanding the commercial interest and the emotional outburst in the appeal, the law, particularly those prescribed for the protection of its citizenry, has to be strictly complied with. Failure in compliance renders the goods liable to confiscation - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
Appeal against order confiscating imported cosmetics for non-compliance with Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.

Analysis:
The judgment deals with two appeals arising from the confiscation of various cosmetics imported against bills of entry that did not have the required 'no objection certificate' from the Assistant Drug Controller, as mandated by rule 133 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The goods were confiscated as they were unable to comply with the specified points of entry under rule 43A of the said Rules. The appeals were taken up for disposal in the absence of representation for the appellant, after a substantial delay. The Authorized Representative highlighted that the Rules are meant for the safety of the country's residents, and importers must adhere to them. Importers were given the opportunity to transship the goods to recognized ports to ensure safety standards were met.

The grounds of appeal challenged the ex-parte decision, arguing that cosmetics, not being prohibited, should not be absolutely confiscated. It was also contended that the cross-examination of the Deputy Drugs Controller was not allowed, and the decision was unauthorized stoppage of imports at a non-approved entry point. However, the Tribunal found these arguments not in line with the facts. It was established that Goa was not an approved entry point for cosmetics importation. Despite commercial interests, strict compliance with laws, especially those safeguarding citizens, is necessary. Failure to comply renders goods liable to confiscation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, emphasizing the importance of adherence to legal requirements, even in the face of commercial considerations and emotional appeals. The judgment underscores the significance of following regulations designed to protect public safety, affirming that failure to comply can lead to confiscation of goods.