2024 (2) TMI 447 - AT - Customs

Permission of re-export of the imported goods - personal penalty - import of Unmanned Aircraft System (UAS) Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAVs)/ Remote Piloted Aircrafts (RPAs)/ drones - restricted goods or not - requirement of import license from DGFT and NOC from DGCA - HELD THAT - Reliance placed in the decision of this Tribunal in the matter of M/S. GLOBAL ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (NS-V) 2019 (4) TMI 1050 - CESTAT MUMBAI in which although the imported goods were termed as prohibited goods but despite that the same was permitted to be re-exported - Admittedly the imported goods involved herein is restricted. The prior clearance of import and also the license to import have not been taken from the authorities concern, which was incumbent upon the appellant to take beforehand i.e. before the import took place. Re-export of goods - HELD THAT - Although there is some irregularity on the part of the appellant but looking at the facts of this case and background of the appellant herein who has imported the goods involved herein not for any commercial purpose but only for the purpose of static display in his clinic, the re-export of aforesaid good is permitted as held in M/S. GLOBAL ENTERPRISES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (NS-V) 2019 (4) TMI 1050 - CESTAT MUMBAI . Personal penalty on the appellant u/s. 112 ibid - HELD THAT - Any improper import of goods which has rendered such goods to confiscate, is sufficient to attract penalty u/s. 112 ibid. Considering the facts and circumstance of this case and the bonafide of the appellant the same is reduced to the amount already paid by him. The impugned order is modified - Appeal disposed off.

Summary

Issues:
The case involves the appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs upholding the confiscation of imported goods and imposition of penalty due to failure to comply with import regulations.

Facts and Background:
The appellant, a general Dentist practicing in Mumbai, imported a RCRCM Typhoon glider from Belgium for display at his clinic. The product was offered at a discounted price as it was imported without radio control. However, the import of such Unmanned Aircraft Systems (UAS) falls under restricted category, requiring prior clearance from DGCA and import license from DGFT. The consignment was seized for not meeting these requirements, leading to an adjudication order for confiscation of goods and penalty under Customs Act, 1962.

Arguments and Decision:
During the proceedings, the appellant expressed intent to re-export the goods, citing precedents where re-export was allowed for non-compliant imports. The Tribunal referred to a previous case where prohibited goods were permitted for re-export, emphasizing that failure to comply with standards could lead to confiscation but not necessarily consummated. The Tribunal upheld the liability of goods for confiscation but allowed re-export without imposing penalties, considering the appellant's background and purpose of import for static display.

Conclusion:
While acknowledging the irregularity in import, the Tribunal permitted re-export of the restricted goods due to the appellant's non-commercial purpose. The personal penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act was reduced considering the appellant's bona fide intentions, limited to the amount already paid. The impugned order was modified accordingly, and the appeal was disposed of in favor of the appellant.