2022 (3) TMI 418 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods - redemption fine - penalty u/s 112(a) of Customs Act - imported Assorted Deodorant - violation of provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act read with the rules thereunder - HELD THAT - There is no deliberate violation of the provisions of port of restriction by the appellant as the goods have been imported through Nava Sheva, which is a notified sea port and further ICD, Garhi Harsaru falls under the jurisdiction of Commissioner of Customs, ICD, Patparganj. Further, it is found that the competent authority under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act have issued No Objection Certificate for release of the goods after inspection, and the appellant was registered under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Thus, this called for no adverse action against the appellant. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of appellant.

Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported goods under the Customs Act.
2. Violation of provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act.
3. Jurisdiction of the port of entry for imported goods.
4. Issuance of 'No Objection Certificate' for release of goods.
5. Adjudication of penalties under the Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The primary issue in this appeal was whether the appellant was rightly subjected to the confiscation of imported Assorted Deodorant valued at ?28,51,851/- under the Customs Act. The appellant imported the goods through ICD Garhi Harsaru, and the Assessing Group found discrepancies in the consignment during examination. The Adjudicating Authority ordered for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and imposed a fine and penalty under Section 125(1) and Section 112(a) respectively.

2. The violation of provisions of the Drugs and Cosmetics Act was a crucial aspect of the case. The appellant imported cosmetics, including Deodorant, which were found to be in violation of the Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945 as import of drugs and cosmetics was not allowed at ICD Garhi Harsaru. Despite obtaining a 'No Objection Certificate' from the Drugs Controlling Authority, the goods were still confiscated due to the violation.

3. The issue of the jurisdiction of the port of entry for imported goods was raised as the appellant argued that the goods were initially destined for clearance from ICD Patparganj, a notified port. However, due to logistical issues, the shipment was diverted to ICD Garhi Harsaru. The Tribunal considered the jurisdictional aspect and concluded that the goods were imported through a notified sea port and fell under the jurisdiction of the Commissioner of Customs, ICD Patparganj.

4. The issuance of the 'No Objection Certificate' for release of goods after inspection played a significant role in the case. The competent authority under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act issued the certificate, indicating that the goods were safe for import. This certification, along with the registration of the appellant under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, influenced the Tribunal's decision to set aside the impugned order.

5. The adjudication of penalties under the Customs Act was also a critical issue. The Adjudicating Authority imposed a fine and penalty on the appellant for the alleged violations. However, the Tribunal, after considering the arguments presented by both parties, found no deliberate violation by the appellant and allowed the appeal with consequential benefits, emphasizing compliance with the law and the absence of malafide intentions.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the key legal issues involved in the case and the Tribunal's decision on each aspect, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal reasoning and implications of the judgment.

← Previous Next →