Designated-port import restriction prevails over general permission, sustaining confiscation while allowing reduction of penalty for non-deliberate breach.

Metal scrap imports were subject to amended EXIM Policy restrictions requiring entry only through designated ports and prescribed certificates for war-related materials; a general permission could not override those specific conditions. The document states that import through Land Customs Station, Amritsar was not permissible and that confiscation of the consignment was sustained. It also notes that where the breach was treated as an error rather than deliberate evasion, penalty under Section 112 of the Customs Act could be moderated, resulting in reduction of the penalty while the confiscation and redemption fine remained upheld.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether stainless steel scrap could be imported through Land Customs Station, Amritsar in view of the EXIM Policy requirements and the notification relied upon by the importer; (ii) whether the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 was justified in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether stainless steel scrap could be imported through Land Customs Station, Amritsar in view of the EXIM Policy requirements and the notification relied upon by the importer.

Analysis: The import of metal scrap was governed by the amended import policy, under which metal scrap had to be imported through designated ports and the importer had to furnish the prescribed certificates regarding war-related materials. Land Customs Station, Amritsar was not a designated place for import of such scrap. The general permission relied upon by the importer could not override the specific restrictions under the EXIM Policy, and the public notices issued to give effect to the policy amendment were binding for that purpose.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the consignment was upheld and the importer was not entitled to clear the goods through Land Customs Station, Amritsar.

Issue (ii): Whether the penalty imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 was justified in the facts of the case.

Analysis: Although the import was in breach of the designated-port requirement, the breach was treated as an error rather than deliberate evasion. On that footing, the penalty was considered excessive and warranted reduction.

Conclusion: The penalty was upheld in principle but reduced to Rs. 20,000.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction in penalty, while the confiscation and redemption fine were sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A specific restriction under the import policy requiring metal scrap to be imported only through designated ports prevails over a general notification permitting imports through a customs station, and breach of that requirement may sustain confiscation while still permitting moderation of penalty where the contravention is not deliberate.

---