1987 (11) TMI 215 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of penalty on the appellant for attempted export of mandrex tablets without prior authorization.
- Interpretation of Customs Act and Export Baggage Rules regarding the attempted export of mandrex tablets.
- Compliance with the provisions of the law in confiscation and penalty imposition.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CEGAT, BOMBAY involved an appeal against an order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs, Bombay, concerning the attempted export of mandrex tablets without authorization. The facts revealed that two passengers' baggage contained mandrex tablets valued at Rs. 1,20,850, and the appellant was involved in the incident. The Additional Collector ordered the confiscation of the tablets and imposed a penalty of Rs. 10,000 on the appellant. The appellant challenged only the penalty, not the confiscation.

During the appeal hearing, the appellant's advocate argued that mandrex tablets were not included in the Customs Act's Schedule at the time of the attempted export, making the penalty invalid. The advocate also highlighted that the appellant was discharged in a separate criminal case due to the lack of an offense on the alleged date. On the other hand, the Collector's representative contended that authorization was required for exporting psychotropic substances and that the Export Baggage Rules restricted exporting medicines exceeding Rs. 200 in value.

The judgment emphasized that the export of mandrex tablets without authorization from the Narcotics Commissioner was prohibited. However, the department failed to prove the necessity of such authorization on the date of the incident. The Tribunal found that since mandrex tablets were not prohibited for export at the time, no penalty could be imposed on the appellant. Additionally, it was noted that there was no violation of the Export Baggage Rules as the suitcases containing the tablets did not belong to the appellant or the passengers involved.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the penalty imposed on the appellant was erroneous. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, the penalty was set aside, and any paid penalty was directed to be refunded to the appellant. The judgment focused on the legal requirements for imposing penalties, the interpretation of relevant laws, and the necessity of compliance with procedural rules in customs cases.