2000 (2) TMI 506 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
Import of poppy seeds without fulfilling conditions under Export & Import Policy 1997-2001, confiscation of goods under Customs Act, imposition of penalty, request for release on payment of redemption fine, applicability of previous case laws on redemption of goods.

Analysis:
The appellants imported poppy seeds from Afghanistan without meeting the conditions specified in the Export & Import Policy 1997-2001, necessitating a certificate from the country of origin confirming legal cultivation of opium poppy. The adjudicating authority confiscated the seeds under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act and imposed a penalty of Rs. 75,000 under Section 112(a) of the Act. The appeal against this decision was rejected by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals).

The appellants, through their counsel, admitted unawareness of the import conditions but did not contest the confiscation order. They sought release of the goods upon payment of a redemption fine, citing previous cases where goods were released on such terms. The Revenue's representative argued that the specific conditions of the 1997-2001 policy were not fulfilled, distinguishing the case from earlier precedents.

The Tribunal noted that the appellants did not dispute the confiscation but argued for release on redemption fine and personal penalty, referencing past cases under the 1985-88 policy. However, the current case fell under the 1997-2001 policy, which mandated stringent conditions for poppy seed imports to curb illicit activities. The Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) justified the confiscation to prevent illegal opium cultivation and associated trade.

Given the appellants' blatant violation of the import policy, the Tribunal found no fault in the lower authorities' decision to confiscate the goods and impose a penalty. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the confiscation and penalty orders.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation and penalty, emphasizing the need to adhere to import policies to prevent illegal activities. The appellants' plea for release on redemption fine was rejected due to the serious nature of violating the policy's conditions.