1988 (8) TMI 294 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Appeal against order-in-original for confiscation of seized tyres and imposition of penalties.
2. Appellants' plea of innocence and lack of awareness of Import Control Regulations.
3. Challenge to absolute confiscation and penalties imposed by Additional Collector of Customs.
4. Argument for redemption of goods on payment of fine based on Supreme Court precedent.
5. Respondent's submission regarding lack of import licenses and violation of Import Control Order.
6. Consideration of arguments and decision on appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to multiple appeals against an order-in-original for the confiscation of 4,123 tyres seized by customs officers from a vessel. The appellants, who pleaded ignorance of Import Control Regulations, had their goods confiscated and were each penalized Rs. 25,000 by the Additional Collector of Customs. The appellants argued for redemption of goods based on their innocence and the goods' non-contraband nature, citing a Supreme Court case allowing redemption on payment of a fine.

During the hearing, the appellants' counsel contended that the Additional Collector's decision was unjustified, as the goods were permissible for import under Open General License (OGL). The Supreme Court precedent highlighted the discretion of the Collector to allow redemption instead of absolute confiscation. The appellants sought a similar opportunity to redeem the goods on payment of an appropriate fine, emphasizing that similar imports had been redeemed in the past at the same port.

However, the Respondent argued that the appellants lacked import licenses and were not Actual Users, rendering the OGL entry inapplicable. The goods were deemed to have been imported in violation of the Import Control Order, justifying the confiscation and penalties imposed by the Additional Collector.

Upon considering both sides' submissions, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation and penalties, deeming them appropriate given the violation of ITC regulations. Nevertheless, the Tribunal found merit in the appellants' argument regarding the lack of consideration of redemption options by the Additional Collector. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the order of absolute confiscation and remanded the matter to the Additional Collector to grant the appellants the option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine, to be determined based on market prices and profit margins.

In conclusion, while confirming the penalties and confiscation, the Tribunal directed the Additional Collector to allow redemption of the goods upon payment of a fine, in line with the observations made in the judgment.