CESTAT Upholds Redemption of Confiscated Goods for Home Use Despite Revenue's Appeal

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, upheld the decision to allow redemption of confiscated feeding bottles for home consumption, despite the Revenue's appeal seeking restoration of the original order-in-original. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the reduced fine and penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals), emphasizing the impracticality of re-exporting the goods after a prolonged period of clearance for home consumption. The appeal was dismissed, highlighting the unavailability of the goods for re-export due to the extended duration of clearance for home consumption.

---

---

Issues: Appeal against redemption of goods for home consumption, challenge to reduction of fine and penalty

The judgment delivered by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, Mumbai, involved an appeal filed by the Revenue challenging the redemption of goods for home consumption. The appellant argued that the goods should not have been allowed to be redeemed and sought restoration of the order-in-original, contesting the reduction of fine and penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals). The goods in question were feeding bottles imported by the respondent, which were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The original authority had provided an option for redemption against payment of a fine of Rs.25,000 and imposed a penalty of Rs.20,000 on the importer. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation but reduced the fine and penalty to Rs.5,000 and Rs.2,000 respectively, allowing the goods to be redeemed for home consumption. The key difference between the original order and the appellate order was the permission for clearance for home consumption instead of re-export. The Tribunal, after reviewing the records, found no reason to interfere with the reduced fine and penalty amounts determined by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal noted that there was no evidence of the physical availability of the feeding bottles for re-export, especially considering the significant time that had passed since the appellate Commissioner's order for clearance of goods for home consumption. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that the bottles were no longer available for re-export after being allowed for home consumption for over seven years.

The appellant, represented by the JDR, argued that the feeding bottles imported by the respondent were prohibited due to the lack of BIS registration and should have been confiscated or re-exported instead of being cleared for home consumption. The consultant for the respondent mentioned that he had no instructions from the respondent. The JDR reiterated the grounds of the appeal, emphasizing the prohibition on the feeding bottles and the necessity for re-export rather than clearance for home consumption. Despite the absence of representation for the respondent, the Tribunal carefully analyzed the facts and legal provisions involved in the case. The Tribunal considered the value of the goods, the timeline of events, and the lack of evidence supporting the possibility of re-exporting the feeding bottles. Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the plea for re-export was not feasible given the circumstances and upheld the decision to allow redemption for home consumption. The Tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeal was based on the practical impossibility of re-exporting the goods after such a significant period had passed since the initial order.

---