2016 (9) TMI 468 - AT - Customs

Confiscation of goods section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 denial of DEPB imposition of penalty - Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 attempt to export Alprazolam tablets without NOC as obtained by Narcotic Commissioner, Gwalior statutory obligation to produce NOC Held that - It is surprised that when NOC is required which is known to the Appellant exporter as they themselves applied for the same, then why the same was not informed to Custom/CHA. This clearly shows the mala fide intention on the part of appellant. Though the appellant applied for NOC but it was a futile exercise as they did not have importer country s permit for said Narcotic Drug without which, CBN can not issue NOC malafide intention on the part of appellant confiscation of goods, denial of DEPB and penalty under section 114(i) justified. Mis-declaration of goods imposition of penalty section 114 AA of the Customs Act, 1962 Held that - there is no mis-declaration on the part of appellant exporter either in respect of description of goods or value penalty not imposed. Imposition of penalty CHA involvement of CHA in the attempt to export the goods without NOC Held that - no mis-declaration found on the part of CHA. It was the client who suppressed the fact of NOC not from custom but also from CHA. On pointing out by the custom regarding NOC for Alprazolam tablet, the CHA immediately informed their client no fault on the part of CHA penalty not imposed on CHA appeal decided in favor of CHA.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of Alprazolam tablets for export without NOC
2. Denial of DEPB claim amount
3. Imposition of penalties on various parties

Analysis:
1. The case involved the export of pharmaceutical drugs, including Alprazolam tablets, without the required NOC from the Narcotic Commissioner, Gwalior. The appellant failed to produce the NOC, leading to the confiscation of 18 cartons of Alprazolam tablets valued at ?1,05,952. The adjudicating authority justified the confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant's plea of lack of awareness and pending NOC application was rejected, emphasizing the intentional export attempt without the necessary authorization. The DEPB claim amount of ?6,356 was also denied, and penalties were imposed under various sections on the exporter and related parties.

2. The appellant argued that there was no intention to export the goods without the NOC, citing the pending application and lack of mis-declaration. The consultant relied on a case law to support the appellant's position. The Assistant Commissioner reiterated the findings of the impugned order, emphasizing the requirement of NOC for exporting Alprazolam tablets. The appellate authority upheld the confiscation, denied the DEPB claim amount, and imposed penalties based on the intentional export attempt without the required authorization. However, the penalty under Section 114AA was dropped due to no mis-declaration regarding the goods' description or value.

3. In the case of the CHA, it was argued that they promptly informed the exporter upon learning about the NOC requirement for Alprazolam tablets. The CHA's innocence in the export attempt without NOC involvement was highlighted, leading to the dropping of the penalty imposed on them. The appellate authority partially allowed the appeal of M/s. Laborate Pharmaceutical (India) and fully allowed the appeal of M/s. Swift Cleford Agency Pvt. Ltd., considering the lack of involvement of the CHA in the attempt to export the psychotropic substance without the necessary authorization.

This detailed analysis of the judgment showcases the issues of confiscation, denial of claim amount, and imposition of penalties in a case involving the export of pharmaceutical drugs without the required authorization, highlighting the legal consequences for the parties involved.