Customs Tribunal Overturns Confiscation Order for Importers Complying with Relaxed Registration

The Tribunal allowed the appeal against the Adjudication Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs. It held that the confiscation of goods and penalty imposed were not valid as the importers complied with the relaxed registration requirements outlined in the Office Memorandum, despite not fulfilling the standard registration under the EXIM Policy. The Tribunal found that the goods were imported after the relaxation of registration conditions, rendering the confiscation unjustified. Therefore, the Commissioner's order was set aside in favor of the appellants.

---

---

Issues:
- Appeal against Adjudication Order passed by Commissioner of Customs
- Confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962
- Penalty under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962
- Interpretation of EXIM Policy for import of penicillin G. Potassium
- Relaxation of registration requirement by Office Memorandum
- Validity of Commissioner's order in light of EXIM Policy and Office Memorandum

Analysis:

1. Appeal Against Adjudication Order:
The appellants filed an appeal against the Adjudication Order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, which ordered the confiscation of goods valued at Rs. 70,63,587 under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and imposed a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000 under Section 112(a) of the same Act.

2. Interpretation of EXIM Policy and Registration Requirement:
The appellants contended that the import of penicillin G. Potassium was not restricted under the EXIM Policy for the year 2003-2004. They argued that the condition of registration was relaxed by an Office Memorandum, exempting the requirement of registration for certain imports. The appellants claimed that they were in compliance with the relaxed conditions and therefore, the confiscation of goods for not obtaining advance registration was not justified.

3. Validity of Commissioner's Order:
The Commissioner of Customs held that the goods were imported in violation of the conditions of the EXIM Policy as the importer failed to furnish the required registration under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act. However, the Tribunal noted that the imports were made after 1-4-2003 and the restriction on registration was relaxed by the Office Memorandum issued by the Directorate General of Health Services. Therefore, the Tribunal found that the confiscation of goods on the grounds of lack of registration was not sustainable and set aside the Commissioner's order.

4. Decision and Conclusion:
Considering the relaxation of the registration requirement by the Office Memorandum and the compliance of the importers with the conditions specified, the Tribunal allowed the appeal. The Tribunal held that the confiscation of goods and imposition of penalty by the Commissioner of Customs were not valid in light of the EXIM Policy provisions and the Office Memorandum exempting certain imports from registration requirements. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the Commissioner's order and allowed the appeal in favor of the appellants.

---