1995 (6) TMI 108 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Compliance with import conditions under OGL License.
2. Confiscation of imported goods and imposition of redemption fine.
3. Interpretation of general conditions of import under OGL.

Issue 1: Compliance with import conditions under OGL License
The appellants imported tool alloy steel under OGL License No. 5/88 but failed to register the contract with the competent authority within the specified period, as required by para 31 of Appx 6. The appellants argued that compliance with para 7(1) of OGL No. 5/88 exempted them from the requirement of para 31. However, this argument was rejected, leading to the confiscation of goods. The authorized representative contended that the items were imported for R & D purposes, permissible under the license, and all conditions were met.

Issue 2: Confiscation of imported goods and imposition of redemption fine
The Collector of Customs confirmed the order of confiscation due to non-compliance with the registration requirement under para 31. The appellants argued against the imposition of a redemption fine of 100% of the CIF value, stating that their import was in accordance with OGL No. 5/88 and they were actual users without a profit motive. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation but reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 5600 to Rs. 1500, considering that the contravention did not result in revenue loss and the registration was primarily for statistical purposes.

Issue 3: Interpretation of general conditions of import under OGL
The JDR argued that the imported item fell under Appx 6, and the general conditions applied to all imports under OGL licenses, irrespective of specific licenses. The Tribunal agreed, stating that para 31 was a pre-importation requirement, while para 7(1) of OGL No. 5/88 was post-importation. Compliance with one did not negate the need to comply with the other. The Tribunal concluded that the appellants' arguments were not sustainable, leading to the confirmation of the confiscation order. However, the Tribunal found the 100% redemption fine excessive and reduced it to Rs. 1500, considering the appellants' R & D purpose and lack of profit motive.