2007 (11) TMI 253 - AT - Customs

Import of homoeopathic medicines through Patparganj, Delhi - Rule 43A of Drugs & Cosmetics Rules, 1945 indicates places of importation & in the present case, place of importation is Patparganj, which is not covered under the rule - Custom authorities confiscated the goods u/s 111(d) of Customs Act on ground of violation of Rule 43A clearance of imported medicine other than place of importation as mentioned in Rule 43A is illegal it is not mere technical lapse confiscation is justified

Summary

Issues:
Violation of Rule 43A of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 leading to confiscation of goods.

Analysis:
The case involved the importation of homoeopathic medicines through a specific port and the subsequent filing of bills of entry at a different location. The Customs authorities sought to confiscate the goods citing a violation of Rule 43A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The Commissioner of Customs upheld the confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, allowing redemption on payment of fines and penalties.

The appellant argued that they had been importing medicines through the same route for 15 years without issue, and that Rule 43A pertains to the place of importation, not the filing of bills of entry. They contended that the rule was outdated and no longer applicable. The Revenue representative, however, supported the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing that Rule 43A specifies the places of importation, which did not include the location where the goods were filed.

Upon review, the Tribunal found that Rule 43A mandates drug importation through specific designated places, including Nhava Sheva, among others. The appellant's importation through a different location constituted a violation of the rule. The Tribunal noted that the Drug Controller authorities typically examined goods at the designated port, emphasizing the importance of adherence to the specified import locations. The Tribunal held that the clearance of goods at a location not mentioned in Rule 43A constituted an illegal act, not merely a technical error. Considering the leniency already shown by the Commissioner in imposing fines and penalties, the Tribunal upheld the decision to reject the appeals, affirming the confiscation of the goods.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals, emphasizing the significance of adhering to the specified import locations as per Rule 43A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The judgment underscored that the violation of such rules cannot be considered a minor lapse and upheld the confiscation of goods due to the non-compliance with the designated importation places.