Redemption fine and penalty on imported medical equipment were sustained to be reduced and deleted where no culpable conduct was shown.

Imported medical equipment intended for actual use in heart surgery, with no intention to violate import policy, justified a reduced redemption fine because the market-price basis for a higher fine was absent. Penalty on the importer was also unsustainable because the equipment had been supplied free of cost and there was no deliberate act or omission or other culpable conduct. The order upholding reduction of redemption fine and deletion of penalty was sustained in full.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the reduction of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of imported medical equipment required interference. (ii) Whether penalty on the importer was sustainable.

Issue (i): Whether the reduction of redemption fine in lieu of confiscation of imported medical equipment required interference.

Analysis: The goods were imported for actual use in heart surgery and not for sale. The lower appellate authority had recorded that there was no intention to violate the policy provisions and that, in such circumstances, the market price basis for a higher redemption fine was not available.

Conclusion: The reduction of redemption fine was upheld and no interference was called for.

Issue (ii): Whether penalty on the importer was sustainable.

Analysis: The equipment had been given free to the importer and there was no deliberate act or omission on the importer's part. On those facts, the absence of culpable conduct justified deletion of penalty.

Conclusion: The setting aside of penalty was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed and the impugned order was sustained in full.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are for actual use and there is no deliberate violation or culpable conduct, reduction of redemption fine and deletion of penalty may be sustained.

---