1999 (9) TMI 365 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of Populated Circuit Board (PCB) under Section 112(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 with redemption fine and personal penalties imposed on importers.
2. Interpretation of the negative list under the Import and Export Policy regarding the import of PCBs as part of Quartz Clock Movement.
3. Application of Public Notice No. 32/92 and Ministry of Commerce Notification 22(N-3) on the import of accessories, components, and spares of consumer durables.
4. Justification of the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalties under Sections 111(d) and 112 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The Commissioner ordered the confiscation of PCBs under Section 112(d) of the Customs Act, with a redemption fine and personal penalties imposed on the importers. The appellants argued that the PCBs were part of a Quartz Clock Movement and not independently imported, thus not falling under the negative list. However, the JDR contended that since PCBs were in the negative list and no specific import license was provided, confiscation was justified.

2. The debate centered on whether the imported PCBs were covered under the negative list as consumer goods. The appellants claimed that as part of a sub-assembly, the PCBs did not require a separate license. However, the Commissioner held that the amended definition of consumer goods included accessories and parts, making the import of PCBs without a license a violation of the Import and Export Policy.

3. Public Notice No. 32/92 clarified the import of accessories of consumer durables, requiring a license unless specifically included in the negative list. The Tribunal found that since PCBs were part of consumer durables and fell under the negative list, import without a license led to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act.

4. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods and the redemption fine, citing the import of PCBs as accessories of consumer durables without a license. However, the personal penalty imposed on the partner of the importing firm was set aside, as a similar penalty was already imposed on the firm itself, finding no separate justification for an additional penalty.

In conclusion, the Tribunal sustained the confiscation of goods and penalties based on the violation of the Import and Export Policy regarding the import of PCBs as part of consumer durables without a required license, while setting aside the additional penalty on the partner of the importing firm.