2021 (11) TMI 29 - AT - Customs

Absolute Confiscation - cosmetics products (the make-up Kit) - prohibited or restricted goods? - misdeclared goods - CDSCO Registration Certificate not present - HELD THAT - The CDSCCO Certificate are being issued by Central Drugs Standard Control Organization. All cosmetic products that are imported for sale in India need to be registered with the Licensing Authority, as is defined under Rule 21 of Drugs and Cosmetic Act which regulate the import of cosmetic to ensure safety, quality and performance. For this purpose that the CDSCO Certificates are issued by the afore-mentioned organization in terms of the provisions of Cosmetic Rules, 1945, which stands amended with Cosmetic Rules, 2020. The certificate is issued by the Central Licensing Authority for registration of cosmetic manufactured for import into India and use in India - This particular perusal makes it abundantly clear that the goods which are not mentioned in CDSCO Certificate are the restricted goods. As per the settled law of evidence admissions have to be accepted and the voluntary admissions need no further proof. There are no infirmity in the order under challenge where the goods of value of ₹ 89,829/- have been ordered absolute confiscation, Customs duty has been demanded with interest and penalty has been imposed - appeal dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported goods due to misdeclaration and absence in CDSCO Registration Certificate.

Analysis:
1. The appellant, an importer, imported cosmetic products which were found to be misdeclared and not mentioned in the CDSCO Registration Certificate. The Adjudicating Authority rejected the declared value and ordered confiscation of goods valued at &8377; 25,45,129/-, with an option for redemption. Goods valued at &8377; 89,829/- were ordered for absolute confiscation due to absence in the CDSCO Registration Certificate. Customs duty of &8377; 1,07,9350/- was confirmed, along with a penalty of &8377; 73,322/-. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the order, leading to the appeal before the Tribunal.

2. The appellant argued against absolute confiscation, stating the goods were cosmetics and not prohibited, emphasizing the CDSCO certificate. The Department countered, highlighting the admitted misdeclaration and absence of the CDSCO Registration Certificate. The Tribunal identified the main issue as the permissibility of absolute confiscation due to goods not being declared in the CDSCO Registration Certificate.

3. The Tribunal explained the technicality of CDSCO Certificates, emphasizing their necessity for imported cosmetic products in India. The absence of goods in the CDSCO Certificate indicates restricted goods. Section 125 of the Customs Act allows fine in lieu of confiscation, but the discretion lies with the Confiscating Officer. The Tribunal noted the admitted misdeclaration and discrepancies in the case, supporting the absolute confiscation.

4. Referring to established evidence law, the Tribunal accepted the admissions made by the appellant, indicating intent to evade Customs Duty. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the order, upholding the absolute confiscation of goods valued at &8377; 89,829/-, along with confirmed Customs duty, penalty, and interest. The appeal was dismissed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues, arguments presented, legal principles applied, and the Tribunal's final decision regarding the confiscation of imported goods due to misdeclaration and absence in the CDSCO Registration Certificate.