2007 (7) TMI 176 - HC - Customs

Appellant has produced a pre-inspection certificate by an agency having its branch in Abidjan, though the said branch is not mentioned in the list of the Exim Policy 100% inspection of the consignment was undertaken and nothing objectionable was found in the consignment - if there is nothing objectionable in the consignment, the confiscation and the imposition of the penalty is absolutely wrong and untenable

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether penalty can be imposed for not producing a pre-inspection certificate as per the EXIM Policy 2004-2009.
2. Whether the confiscation and penalty imposed were justified under Sections 111(d) and 112 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
Issue 1: The main issue in this appeal was whether a penalty could be imposed solely for the failure to produce a pre-inspection certificate by an agency listed in the EXIM Policy 2004-2009. The Tribunal found that the appellant had indeed produced a pre-inspection certificate from an agency with a branch in Abidjan, even though that specific branch was not mentioned in the EXIM Policy. Notably, a 100% inspection of the consignment revealed no objectionable items. The Tribunal concluded that since nothing objectionable was found in the consignment, the confiscation and penalty were unjustified under the Customs Act.

Issue 2: The second issue revolved around the validity of the confiscation and penalty imposed under Sections 111(d) and 112 of the Customs Act. It was undisputed that the appellant had provided a pre-inspection certificate from a relevant agency and that the consignment did not contain any prohibited items. In light of these facts, the High Court upheld the Tribunal's decision to set aside the confiscation of the consignment and the penalty imposed. The Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that there was no merit in challenging the Tribunal's ruling based on the accepted facts presented.

In conclusion, the High Court of Gujarat upheld the Tribunal's decision to set aside the confiscation and penalty, ruling in favor of the appellant based on the lack of objectionable items in the consignment despite the technicality regarding the pre-inspection certificate.