Absolute confiscation is unwarranted for a procedural intimation lapse where import is not otherwise prohibited or restricted.

An import of barium nitrate was not shown to be prohibited or restricted under the Exim Policy or any other law, and the hazardous chemicals rules did not themselves bar import of the goods. Those rules required prior or timely intimation of import particulars to the competent authority and contemplated an improvement notice mechanism for compliance lapses. On that basis, a mere procedural lapse in intimation could not, without a demonstrated legal prohibition, justify absolute confiscation or penalty; release was linked to production of the required JDGFT clearance.

---

---

Issues: Whether the absolute confiscation of imported barium nitrate and the penalty imposed were justified when the import was not prohibited or restricted and the procedural requirements under the hazardous chemicals rules had not been shown to bar import.

Analysis: The import was found not to be prohibited or restricted under the Exim Policy or any other law, and the hazardous chemicals rules did not prohibit import of barium nitrate. The rules required prior or timely intimation of import particulars to the concerned authority and contemplated an improvement notice mechanism to remedy any contravention. The record also showed that intimation had been given to the JDGFT, albeit after import, and the Revenue could not identify any prohibition violated by the import. In these circumstances, treating the lapse as warranting absolute confiscation was held to be inappropriate.

Conclusion: The confiscation and penalty were not sustainable; the goods were directed to be released on production of the necessary clearance from the JDGFT.

Final Conclusion: The importer succeeded on the core challenge to absolute confiscation, and the adjudication was set aside with consequential release of the goods upon compliance with the clearance requirement.

Ratio Decidendi: Where an import is not shown to be prohibited or restricted, and the governing safety rules only require regulatory intimation or remedial compliance, absolute confiscation is not justified absent a demonstrated legal prohibition.

---