1994 (4) TMI 143 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the goods were imported into India.
2. Legality of the confiscation of goods.
3. Imposition of redemption fine while permitting re-export.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Whether the goods were imported into India:

The appellant argued that the goods were not imported into India as they were mis-sent and did not cross the customs barrier to mix with the mass of the property of the country. They cited several judgments to support this view, including Trilochan Singh v. Union of India and Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, which held that import does not occur merely by entering the customs frontier. The respondent countered this by distinguishing the cited cases and emphasizing that the goods landed in India and were listed in the negative list, thus violating the ITC requirement.

The Tribunal examined the scope of the word 'import' under Section 2(23) of the Customs Act, 1962, and reviewed various judicial interpretations. The Tribunal concluded that the import of goods was complete once the aircraft landed in India and the Import General Manifest was filed, aligning with the judgments of the Bombay High Court in Apar Private Ltd. v. Union of India and the Kerala High Court in Aluminium Industries Ltd. v. Union of India.

2. Legality of the confiscation of goods:

The appellant argued that since the goods were mis-sent and not intended for use, enjoyment, consumption, sale, or distribution in India, they should not be considered imported, and hence, confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, was not justified. They relied on the judgment in Shew Bux Rai Onkar Mall v. Asstt. Collector of Customs, which held that goods not intended for import should not be confiscated.

The Tribunal, however, found that the goods were listed in the negative list and required a specific license, which was not produced by the importer. Therefore, their confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, was deemed legal and valid.

3. Imposition of redemption fine while permitting re-export:

The appellant contended that once the goods were permitted to be re-exported, the imposition of a redemption fine was not justified. They cited the Tribunal's decision in Padia Sales Corpn. v. Collector of Customs, which held that no condition to re-export could be imposed if redemption was allowed. The respondent argued that the imposition of redemption fine was valid, as upheld in previous Tribunal decisions.

The Tribunal noted that on confiscation, the property in the goods vests in the Government, and Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, provides discretionary power to the Adjudicating Officer to allow redemption of the goods on payment of a fine. The Tribunal found that the Collector had imposed an invalid condition of re-export and, following the Supreme Court's observations in Sewpujanrai Indrasanrai v. Collector of Customs, modified the order to allow the appellants to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 35,000/- without the condition of re-export.

Conclusion:

The Tribunal concluded that the goods were indeed imported into India, their confiscation was legal and valid, and the imposition of a redemption fine while permitting re-export was incorrect. The order was modified to allow the appellants to redeem the goods on payment of a fine of Rs. 35,000/-, and they were permitted to re-export the goods subject to the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal was disposed of in these terms.