2003 (12) TMI 228 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported glass beads under OGL.
2. Imposition of penalties based on the requirement of a license.
3. Interpretation of DGFT circular on consumer goods.
4. Validity of import without a license under OGL.
5. Consideration of previous clearances under OGL.
6. Reduction of redemption fine on confiscated goods.

Confiscation of Imported Goods:
The authorities confiscated the glass beads imported under OGL, claiming they required a license. The appellant argued that previous consignments were imported under OGL without objection. The Tribunal noted that earlier imports were cleared without issue, and since the change in interpretation came after the imports in question, no offense was committed. Consequently, personal penalties imposed were set aside.

Imposition of Penalties:
The Revenue argued that the goods required a license as per the DGFT circular, making them offending goods justifying confiscation. However, the Tribunal found that since the imports were made under OGL with no objection previously, no penal action was warranted. The penalties imposed were therefore set aside.

Interpretation of DGFT Circular:
The DGFT circular classified the glass beads as consumer goods needing a license. The Tribunal acknowledged the circular's importance but emphasized that the change in interpretation post-importation did not render the appellant's actions unlawful, given the history of previous clearances under OGL.

Validity of Import under OGL:
The appellant imported the goods under OGL, but customs authorities raised doubts leading to a show cause notice. Despite the DGFT's opinion post-import, the Tribunal held that since previous clearances were under OGL without objection, no offense was committed by importing the goods in question under OGL.

Consideration of Previous Clearances:
The Tribunal considered the history of previous clearances under OGL without any objection from the Revenue. It was established that the change in interpretation occurred after the imports in question, leading to the conclusion that no penal action or confiscation was justified.

Reduction of Redemption Fine:
While the goods were confiscated with an option for redemption on payment of a fine, the Tribunal noted that the confiscability arose due to a change in interpretation. Therefore, the redemption fine was reduced by 50% in each case, considering the circumstances leading to the confiscation.

In conclusion, the Tribunal set aside penalties imposed on the appellant, noting the history of importing under OGL without objection. The confiscation of goods was also overturned, with a reduction in the redemption fine due to the change in interpretation post-importation.