2000 (3) TMI 509 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Department's application for modification of impugned order for enhancing redemption fine and imposing penalty under Section 112 of Customs Act.
2. Validity of imported goods and application of ITC Policy 1990-93.
3. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty by the Collector.
4. Sufficiency of redemption fine and need for penalty imposition on the respondent.

Issue 1: Department's Application for Modification
The Department filed an application under Section 129D(4) of the Customs Act seeking modification of the impugned order to enhance the redemption fine and impose a penalty on the respondent under Section 112 of the Customs Act. The goods imported by the respondent were found to be consumer durables, falling under the negative list of imports, and clearance was sought against an EXIM Scrip. The impugned order confiscated the goods with a redemption fine for each bill of entry. The Department argued that the redemption fine was too low considering the value of the imported goods and the illegal import, emphasizing that the penalty should have been imposed due to the invalid import.

Issue 2: Validity of Imported Goods and ITC Policy 1990-93
The respondent contended that the imported goods were intended for manufacturing similar products and were not consumer goods in their imported condition. They argued that the goods were importable under a specific entry of the ITC Policy 1990-93, and the right to import under this entry could not be denied. The respondent highlighted various legal precedents supporting their position and emphasized that the goods were not declared as prohibited at the time of import. They also argued that the penalty was unwarranted as there was no malicious intent in the import process. The Collector's findings regarding the nature of the goods and the validity of the Exim Scrip were upheld, and the respondent did not challenge these findings.

Issue 3: Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty
The main focus of the appeal was on the sufficiency of the redemption fine and the necessity of imposing a penalty on the respondent. The Collector provided specific reasons for imposing the redemption fine and for not imposing a penalty. The appellant argued that the redemption fine was too low, while the respondent did not intend to import goods without a license. The Collector's decision to not impose a penalty was supported by the Tribunal's decision cited in the appeal memorandum. The rationale behind not imposing a penalty was the respondent's satisfaction with the Exim Scrip for lawful import and the absence of intent to import without a license. The Collector's exercise of discretion in this regard was deemed appropriate, and there were no sufficient grounds to disturb the impugned order.

In conclusion, the appellate tribunal rejected the appeal, stating that the impugned order could not be disturbed. The decision was based on the findings related to the validity of the imported goods, the application of the ITC Policy 1990-93, the imposition of the redemption fine, and the Collector's discretion in not imposing a penalty on the respondent. The tribunal upheld the Collector's reasoning and found no justifiable grounds to alter the impugned order.