9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Appeal against confiscation of goods under Customs Act, imposition of redemption fine, and personal penalty. Analysis: The appeal was filed against the confiscation of aqua-ultron water purifying equipment and imposition of a redemption fine and personal penalty by the Additional Collector of Customs. The officers seized two consignments of the equipment imported by the appellants, suspecting misdeclaration under the Customs Act. The appellants contended that the equipment was non-domestic and designed for commercial use, not misdeclared. The adjudicating officer found misdeclaration, confiscated the goods, and imposed fines. The advocate for the appellants argued that the equipment was non-domestic and fell under the Flexible Clause of the Import Policy. The J.D.R. for the respondents stated that the equipment was consumer goods, not capital goods, and import under the Flexibility Clause was not justified. The tribunal had to determine if the confiscation and penalties were lawful based on the definitions of capital and consumer goods in the Import Policy. The tribunal analyzed the definitions of capital and consumer goods in the Import Policy. The Aqua-ultron equipment was found to be consumer durable, capable of directly satisfying human needs without further processing. The tribunal considered technical literature showing the equipment's domestic use for water purification. The report from the Industrial Adviser supported the view that the equipment was a consumer durable and not for industrial use. The tribunal upheld the confiscation of the goods as consumer durables not misdeclared. However, it found the redemption fine on two consignments should have been separate to allow choice for redemption. The tribunal reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 1,50,000 for each consignment, totaling Rs. 3 lakhs. The personal penalty of Rs. 10,000 was deemed appropriate. The appeal was dismissed with modifications to the redemption fine.
|
