9911796707
|
Home
Issues involved: Appeals against orders of confiscation of goods and their release on payment of redemption fine and penalty.
Details of the Judgment: 1. Issue of re-export and confiscation: The appellants had imported Gas Can Refrigerant which was found to be Refrigerant-12, requiring import by the actual user against the license and from a country signatory to the Montreal Protocol. The Commissioner permitted re-export but ordered confiscation with redemption on payment of fine and penalty. The Advocate cited precedents to argue against imposing redemption fine and penalty when goods are allowed to be re-exported. 2. Revenue's stance: The Revenue argued that re-export can occur in various situations, including when there is deliberate violation of law. Both appellants were accused of undervaluing goods, committing ITC violation, and contravening environmental provisions, justifying the confiscation and imposition of redemption fine and penalty. 3. Tribunal's decision: Citing the case of Skantron, the Tribunal held that imposing redemption fine while allowing re-export is not legally correct. The Tribunal reasoned that when an option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation is given, it lifts the prohibition, allowing the importer to consume the goods within the country. Therefore, simultaneous imposition of a fine and directing re-export cannot co-exist. The Tribunal's decision in Skantron and HCL Hewlett Packard cases was applied to set aside the impugned order and allow the appeals with consequential relief.
|
