Actual-user import violation and limited confiscation: confiscation and penalties were scaled to seized goods and proven contravention.

Import of newsprint under an actual-user regime through a handling agent beyond a limited facilitation role was treated as a violation of the import policy, and diversion of goods to persons not entitled to import them supported that finding. Confiscation was confined to the quantity actually seized and available for confiscation, so it could not extend to the full imported quantity where the balance had not been seized. The penalty on one importer was set aside because the notice itself recorded delivery to that entity, while the redemption fine and remaining penalties were reduced to reflect the extent of the proven contravention.

---

---

Issues: (i) whether import of newsprint through a handling agent, contrary to the actual user condition, amounted to violation of the import policy; (ii) whether confiscation could be sustained for the entire imported quantity or only the quantity actually seized; and (iii) whether the penalty on one importer and the quantum of redemption fine and other penalties required interference.

Issue (i): whether import of newsprint through a handling agent, contrary to the actual user condition, amounted to violation of the import policy.

Analysis: The import policy permitted import of newsprint by the actual user, subject to guidelines issued by the Ministry of Information and Broadcasting. The handling agent could act only as a facilitator for placing orders, opening letters of credit, arranging movement of goods and clearing the goods, with documents standing in the name of the actual user. On the facts, the appellant stored the goods at its premises and dealt with quantities in a manner not permitted by the policy, including diversion of newsprint to persons not entitled to import it.

Conclusion: The import policy was violated and the finding of contravention was upheld.

Issue (ii): whether confiscation could be sustained for the entire imported quantity or only the quantity actually seized.

Analysis: Confiscation must correspond to the goods actually seized and available for confiscation. Only 158.724 MT of newsprint had been seized from the godown, while the remaining quantity was not seized. Therefore, confiscation could not be sustained for the entire imported quantity.

Conclusion: Confiscation was sustained only to the extent of the seized quantity, and set aside for the balance quantity.

Issue (iii): whether the penalty on one importer and the quantum of redemption fine and other penalties required interference.

Analysis: Since the show cause notice specifically recorded delivery of the imported newsprint to the concerned importer, the penalty on that importer was not sustainable. Considering the value of the seized goods and the extent of violation, the redemption fine and penalties imposed on the other noticees were reduced.

Conclusion: The penalty on M/s. Statesman India Ltd. was set aside, and the redemption fine and other penalties were reduced.

Final Conclusion: The appeals succeeded only in part: the violation finding was maintained, confiscation was confined to the seized newsprint, one penalty was deleted, and the remaining fine and penalties were scaled down.

Ratio Decidendi: Where import under an actual-user regime is handled beyond the limited role of a facilitator, violation of the import policy is established, but confiscation can extend only to the goods actually seized and penalties may be modified to reflect the extent of proven contravention.

---