Tribunal upholds machinery confiscation with reduced fines, penalties for importing discrepancies.

The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the imported machinery due to discrepancies in the year of manufacture and lack of a valid license. The redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 20 lakhs considering the appellants' industrial use and not for commercial purposes. Penalties on the company and Technical Advisor were also reduced, while the penalty on the General Manager was set aside due to no established fraudulent intent. The decision balanced the circumstances and roles of the parties involved in the importation of restricted industrial goods.

---

---

Issues:
Import of second-hand machinery more than 10 years old without a valid license, discrepancy in the year of manufacture, confiscation of machinery, imposition of redemption fine, penalties on the company and its officers.

Analysis:
The appellants imported a second-hand pickling machine, claiming it was manufactured in 1995 based on a Chartered Engineer's Certificate. However, upon examination, it was revealed that the machinery was actually manufactured in 1985. The import of machinery more than 10 years old without a valid license was not permitted under the Import Export Policy. Consequently, the machinery was seized by the Department. The Commissioner confiscated the machinery and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 65 lakhs. Additionally, penalties were imposed on the company, General Manager, and Technical Advisor under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act.

The appellants argued that they believed in good faith that the machinery was from 1995 and had no intention to defraud the government. They highlighted the urgency of procuring the machinery for production needs and the reliance on the Chartered Engineer's Certificate. They contended that since the Customs accepted the valuation certified by the Engineer, a lenient view should have been taken regarding the confiscation.

After hearing both sides, the Tribunal noted that the machinery was indeed manufactured in 1985, making it ineligible for import without a valid license. The confiscation was upheld, but considering the appellants were actual users in the industrial sector and the goods were not for commercial purposes, the redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 20 lakhs. The penalties on the company and the Technical Advisor were also reduced, and the penalty on the General Manager was set aside due to the lack of established intention to defraud.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation of the machinery, reduced the redemption fine and penalties imposed on the company and its Technical Advisor, and set aside the penalty on the General Manager. The appeals were disposed of accordingly, providing a balanced decision based on the circumstances and roles played by the parties involved in the importation of the restricted industrial goods.

---