9911796707
TMI Blog1994 (4) TMI 143X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... n error to the appellants on account of communication gap; that the goods were destined for United Kingdom. As the goods had been imported into India, the ld. Collector confiscated the goods and allowed them to be re-exported on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 35,000/- 3. Shri Sandeep Jain, the ld. Advocate appearing for the appellant submitted that the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Trilochan Singh v Union of India Others, reported in 1981 (8) E.L.T. 667 observed that unless the goods are brought into the country for the purpose of use, enjoyment, consumption, sale or distribution so that they are incorporated and got mixed up with the mass of the property of the country, they cannot be said to have been imported; that importation can be said to have taken place when they have crossed the Customs barrier. Citing another judgment of the Hon ble Delhi High Court in the case of Great Eastern Shipping Co. Ltd. v. Union of India, reported in 1986 (25) E.L.T. 171, the Hon ble High Court of Delhi again agreed with the view taken in the case of Trilochan Singh v. Union of India as cited supra holding that import does not take place when the goods enter the customs frontie ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the Adjudicating Authority has no power to impose redemption fine while permitting re-export of the goods; that the Tribunal further held that the order passed by the Addl. Collector is not correct and was therefore modified. Relying on the judgment of the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Sewpujanrai Indrasanrai v. Collector of Customs, reported in 1983 (13) E.L.T. 1305 (SC) in which it was held that in case option in lieu of confiscation is given, imposition of conditions for release of goods is illegal. Relying on the judgment of the Tribunal in the case of Scantrons Pvt. Ltd. v. Collector of Customs, New Delhi, reported in 1994 (70) E.L.T. 635 (Tri.) = 1991 (33) ECR 398, the ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the Hon ble Tribunal had held : When the goods are confiscated because of any ITC prohibition in terms of Section 111(d) of the Act and an option to pay fine in lieu of such confiscation is given an effect of such option is to lift the prohibition. In other words, the importer/appellant is entitled to import the goods and to consume them within the country on payment of such redemption fine, therefore simultaneously imposition of two conditions ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t was excessive, the Tribunal held But when the Collector has offered redemption, it has to be real having regard to the value of the goods shipped. Hence such a fine for re-export should not exceed the C.I.F. value of the goods, etc. 5. Summing up the ld. SDR submitted that in view of the order of the Hon ble Tribunal, the order of the ld. Collector in regard to confiscation and further allowing the appellant to redeem the goods for re-export was valid in law. 6. Heard the submissions of both sides and considered them. I have also perused the ratio of the decisions cited and relied upon by the appellant and the respondent. I find that the Hon ble Delhi High Court had made observations on the interpretation of the words `imported into India as they figure in Section 2(25) of the Customs Act, 1962. In the instant case before me, I find that the Collector had confiscated the goods holding that the goods had arrived in India in violation of ITC requirement as they were borne in the negative list. The emphasis of the arguments of the ld. Counsel for the appellant was on the word `import arguing that the goods had come into India and the fact of their being sent by mistake was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ations and cognate expressions, means bringing into India from a place outside India. `Bringing into India obviously would mean the clearance of the goods under Section 15. Further discussing the Hon ble Madras High Court s judgment in the case of K.R. Ahmed Shah v. Addl. Collector of Customs, reported in 1981 (8) E.L.T. 153 (Mad.) the Hon ble Madras High Court held that :- The principles that can be deduced from above decision can be summarised as follows :- (1) Goods can be said to be imported to the country only when they are incorporated in and mixed up with the mass of the goods in the country; (2) It cannot be said that the moment an aircraft lands at the International Airport in this country the goods are imported and to hold otherwise would create inconvenience and confusion and would refer the goods which are in the aircraft meant to be carried to other countries subject to the customs laws in this country." (c) Hon ble Calcutta High Court in the case of Indian Rayon Corporation v. CC, reported in 1987 (27) E.L.T. 626 held : In my judgment, this contention of Mr. Roy Choudhary has sufficient force in it. It is true that in view of the definition of `India ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and required a specific licence. As no specific licence was produced by the importer or his authorised agent, their confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act ,1962 was legal and valid. 9. Coming to the third proposition that once the goods were permitted to be exported there was no question of imposition of the redemption fine. 10. On confiscation, property in the goods vests in the Govt. Therefore, nobody has any right to deal with such goods. In order to allow the importer to deal with the goods, Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 provides that it is a discretionary power vested in the Adjudicating Officer to allow redemption of the goods on payment of some fine. In the instant case, as the goods were confiscated by the ld. Collector and the ld. Collector had discretionary power to redeem the goods on payment of fine, he allowed that option after taking all the relevant factors into consideration. 11. The next proposition of the appellant that in case export is permitted, redemption fine cannot be imposed. In support of this contention, the appellant had relied upon the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Padia Sales Corpn. v. Collector of Customs where it was ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
