2010 (8) TMI 905 - AT - Customs

Tribunal ruling: Confiscation overturned, penalties upheld.

DIA PRECIOUS JEWELLERY PVT. LTD. Versus C.C. (ACC & IMPORT), MUMBAI

The tribunal set aside the confiscation of non-offending goods, upheld the absolute confiscation of prohibited wallets, allowed for the re-export of the ... Absolute confiscation of prohibited goods - Wallet - confiscation of non-offending goods - Held that:- The appellant has imported several items which were packed individually. As per invoice, each item as shown separately and the wallets which were found to be confiscated absolutely. The lower authorities has erred in holding the whole of the goods are liable for confiscation as the wallets in question were separately identifiable in the consignment itself - confiscation of the non-offending goods is not correct. Absolute confiscation of the wallets - Held that:- Section 49B of Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972 which deals with the prohibition of items mentioned in Schedule I and as per Schedule I, there is prohibition on dealings in trophies, animals articles, etc. Therefore, it is essential to obtain NOC from the Wild Life Regional Officer which the appellants had failed to obtain, which amounts to the imported wallets are the prohibited goods - absolute confiscation upheld. Whether these wallets in question can be allowed to be re-exported or not? - Held that:- As the customs cannot allow these wallets in India at all and they have to destroy the same. As it can be used in the country of origin, in that situation the re-export of these wallets is allowed - no redemption fine is imposable on the re-export of these wallets. Penalties u/s 112 of FA - Held that:- As the appellant has imported prohibited goods without any NOC from the Wild Life Regional, the penalty on the appellant is correctly imposed by the lower authorities - penalty upheld. Appeal allowed in part. Issues:- Confiscation of non-offending goods- Absolute confiscation of prohibited wallets- Re-export of confiscated wallets- Imposition of penaltiesConfiscation of Non-offending Goods:The appellant imported various items, including wallets made of Python skin, which were held as prohibited under the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The lower authorities confiscated the entire consignment, including non-offending goods, under Section 118A. However, the appellant argued that the non-offending goods were individually identifiable in the consignment and should not have been confiscated. The tribunal agreed, stating that the confiscation of non-offending goods was incorrect as they were separately identifiable, and no redemption fine was applicable.Absolute Confiscation of Prohibited Wallets:The tribunal found that the wallets made of Python skin fell under the prohibited category as per the Wild Life (Protection) Act, 1972. The Act prohibits dealings in certain items listed in Schedule I, including trophies and animal articles. Since the appellant failed to obtain the necessary NOC from the Wild Life Regional Officer, the confiscation of the wallets was deemed correct, and the order of confiscation was upheld.Re-export of Confiscated Wallets:Regarding the possibility of re-exporting the confiscated wallets, the tribunal noted that while the wallets were prohibited in India, they were allowed in the country of origin as evidenced by the CITES certificate obtained by the appellant. Citing a previous ruling, the tribunal allowed the re-export of the wallets, stating that no redemption fine could be imposed on re-exported goods.Imposition of Penalties:The penalties imposed on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act for importing prohibited goods without the required NOC were upheld by the tribunal. The appellant's argument for waiving the penalties was rejected, and the tribunal confirmed the penalty imposed by the lower authorities.In conclusion, the tribunal set aside the confiscation of non-offending goods, upheld the absolute confiscation of prohibited wallets, allowed for the re-export of the confiscated wallets, and confirmed the imposition of penalties on the appellant.