2009 (12) TMI 485 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of cosmetics - import of cosmetic is allowed only through the points of entry specified under Rule 43-A of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules Held that - cosmetic is covered by Entry No. 1 in Schedule D of Rule 132 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 and the appellant is entitled for exemption from the provisions of the Chapter 3 of the D&C Act and Rules Goods can be cleared from any port.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported goods by Commissioner of Customs, Marmagoa.
2. Violation of Rules 133 and 43-A of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
3. Applicability of Rule 132 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.
4. Exemption for goods under Rule 132.
5. Interpretation of substances not intended for medicinal use.
6. Import of cosmetics through Goa Port.
7. Principles of natural justice in confiscation proceedings.
8. Compliance with CBEC Circulars and DGFT opinions.

Analysis:

1. The appeal challenged the absolute confiscation of imported cosmetics by the Commissioner of Customs, Marmagoa, citing violation of Rules 133 and 43-A of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945.

2. The appellant argued for exemption under Rule 132 of Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945, contending that the goods fell under substances not intended for medicinal use, as per Schedule D, and should be freely importable from any port in India.

3. The Tribunal analyzed the definition of cosmetics and substances under the Rules, determining that the imported items like shower gel, shampoo, and body cream were substances not intended for medicinal use, thus qualifying for exemption under Rule 132.

4. The Tribunal considered conflicting interpretations regarding the import of cosmetics through Goa Port, ultimately ruling in favor of the appellant's entitlement to import the goods freely from Goa Port under Schedule D of Rule 132.

5. The judgment highlighted the importance of adherence to principles of natural justice in confiscation proceedings, emphasizing the need for fair procedures and compliance with higher authorities' orders and instructions.

6. The Tribunal examined CBEC Circulars and DGFT opinions supporting the import of toiletries and cosmetics, reinforcing the appellant's argument for exemption and clearance of the goods through Goa Port.

7. Ultimately, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order of absolute confiscation, allowing the appeal and granting consequential relief to the appellant, based on the findings of entitlement to exemption under Rule 132 and the ability to import the goods through the specified port.

This comprehensive analysis reflects the detailed examination and reasoning behind the Tribunal's decision to overturn the Commissioner's order and grant relief to the appellant in the case of the confiscated imported goods.