1998 (7) TMI 322 - AT - Central Excise

Summary

Issues involved: Whether Excimer Laser imported is liable to confiscation and whether penalty is imposable for not obtaining Import Export Code Number.

Details of the Judgment:

Issue 1: Confiscation of Excimer Laser
The Appellant imported Excimer Laser for personal use without obtaining Import Export Code Number. The Commissioner of Customs confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The Appellant argued that the Code Number requirement is procedural, not having revenue implications, and that the goods were not imported in contravention of any prohibition. The Tribunal held that non-observance of the Code Number requirement does not warrant confiscation under Section 111(d) as it is a procedural requirement, not a prohibition. Citing the case of Mangalore Chemicals & Fertilisers v. Dy. Commissioner, the Tribunal emphasized the distinction between substantive and procedural requirements. The confiscation was set aside.

Issue 2: Imposition of Penalty
The Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 on the Appellant. The Tribunal acknowledged that a penalty is warranted but should be commensurate with the offense. Referring to the case of C.C. v. Skefko (India) Bearing Co. Ltd., the Tribunal reduced the penalty to Rs. 1,000, considering the gravity of the offense. It was noted that penalties should be imposed for contentious conduct, not bona fide errors. The appeal was disposed of with the reduced penalty amount.

In conclusion, the Tribunal ruled in favor of the Appellant, setting aside the confiscation of the Excimer Laser and reducing the penalty from Rs. 50,000 to Rs. 1,000, emphasizing that penalties should align with the gravity of the offense and not be imposed for procedural lapses without revenue implications.