Customs penalties and redemption fine are distinct; import compliance objections did not prima facie support confiscation-linked liability.

Clauses (a) and (o) of section 111 of the Customs Act were not shown, on a prima facie basis, to support the penalties arising from import of cosmetics: clause (a) was inapplicable because it concerns import or attempted import at a place other than an appointed customs port, while the alleged defect related to compliance with the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. Clause (o) was not independently supported by the adjudicating authority's reasoning. The note also distinguishes penalty under section 112 from redemption fine under section 125, explaining that a redemption fine arises only when goods are confiscated and cannot be replaced by a personal penalty.

---

---

Issues: Whether the penalties imposed under clauses (a) and (o) of section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 were prima facie sustainable, and whether penalty could be imposed in lieu of confiscation as a substitute for redemption fine.

Analysis: The application concerned waiver of deposit and stay of recovery of penalties imposed on import of cosmetics. On a prima facie view, clause (a) of section 111 was not attracted because that provision applies to import or attempted import at a place other than a customs port appointed under section 7, whereas the objection related to alleged non-compliance with the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940. Clause (o) was also not shown to have been independently supported by the adjudicating authority's reasoning. The order further distinguished penalty under section 112 from redemption fine under section 125, noting that redemption fine arises only where goods are ordered to be confiscated, and penalty on a person is not a substitute for such fine.

Conclusion: The deposit of the penalty was waived and recovery of the penalty was stayed.

---