DGFT import ban on second-hand photocopiers sustains confiscation, while redemption fine and penalty are reduced.

Import of second-hand photocopier machines was treated as prohibited where a DGFT policy circular expressly barred such imports, including machines under ten years old or brought in for service providers. The earlier Larger Bench view supporting importability had already been overruled by the jurisdictional High Court, so confiscation of the goods was sustained as valid in law. On the monetary consequences, the tribunal took a lenient view in light of the overall facts, including the uncontested enhanced duty and demurrage paid during pendency, and reduced the redemption fine and penalty.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the confiscation of the imported second-hand photocopier machines was valid in law. (ii) Whether the redemption fine and penalty called for reduction.

Issue (i): Whether the confiscation of the imported second-hand photocopier machines was valid in law.

Analysis: The imported goods were second-hand, old and used photocopiers brought in large quantity without a licence. A DGFT policy circular had categorically clarified that second-hand photocopier machines could not be permitted to be imported, including where they were less than ten years old or intended for service providers. The earlier Larger Bench view supporting importability had already been overruled by a detailed speaking order of the jurisdictional High Court. In that view, the imports were held to be governed by the DGFT circular and the confiscation was sustained.

Conclusion: The confiscation of the impugned goods was held to be valid and no interference was warranted.

Issue (ii): Whether the redemption fine and penalty called for reduction.

Analysis: The Court took into account the overall facts, including that the enhanced duty was not contested and that higher demurrage had been paid while the matter remained pending. On that basis, a lenient view was taken on the monetary consequences.

Conclusion: The redemption fine and penalty were reduced.

Final Conclusion: The confiscation was upheld, but the monetary penalties were moderated, resulting in only partial relief to the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a valid DGFT policy circular prohibits import of a class of goods, such import is liable to confiscation, and the quantum of fine and penalty may be reduced on the facts of the case.

---