Imported used marine container treated as separate goods, leading to confiscation for lack of import licence and sustained valuation.

An old and used marine steel container imported with machinery was treated as a separate import item, not as primary packing material, because it was used for safe sea carriage and no import licence covering such second-hand container was produced. On that basis, confiscation under the Customs Act was upheld. The separate assessment and valuation of the container on a depreciated new-container basis were sustained because no material rebutted the valuation. The appellate relief already granted on redemption fine and penalty was not further reduced, as no additional ground for interference was shown.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the old and used marine steel container in which the machinery was imported was liable to confiscation for want of an import licence; (ii) whether the container was required to be assessed separately and the valuation adopted by the lower authorities could be interfered with; (iii) whether the redemption fine and penalty warranted further reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the old and used marine steel container in which the machinery was imported was liable to confiscation for want of an import licence.

Analysis: The machinery was admittedly transported in the marine container for safe sea carriage and the container was not primary packing material. Since the container was imported along with the machinery for home consumption and no import licence covering such old and used container was produced, the container attracted the prohibition applicable to second-hand goods requiring licence.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the container under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the container was required to be assessed separately and the valuation adopted by the lower authorities could be interfered with.

Analysis: The container was treated as a separate imported item, and the valuation was worked out on the basis of a new container with depreciation. No material was produced to dislodge that valuation, and the contention that the container value was inseparable from the machinery import was not accepted.

Conclusion: Separate assessment and the valuation adopted by the lower authorities were sustained.

Issue (iii): Whether the redemption fine and penalty warranted further reduction.

Analysis: The appellate authority had already reduced both the redemption fine and the penalty, and no further ground was made out for interference.

Conclusion: No further reduction was granted in redemption fine or penalty.

Final Conclusion: The imported container remained liable to confiscation, its separate valuation was upheld, and the relief on fine and penalty was declined.

Ratio Decidendi: An old and used container imported with machinery is not treated as mere packing material where it is used for transport and is not covered by the applicable import licence, and such container may be assessed separately and confiscated for want of licence.

---