Redemption fine and penalty reduced for properly declared imports where re-export followed licence failure and no mala fides were shown.

Correctly declared imported goods that were sought to be re-exported only because the importer could not obtain the requisite drug import licence did not justify enhancement of redemption fine or penalty. The absence of mala fide intent and mens rea was not displaced, and the reduced monetary liabilities were found to be reasonable on the facts. The tribunal therefore declined to interfere with the Commissioner (Appeals)' reduction of redemption fine and penalty, and the Revenue's challenge failed.

---

---

Issues: Whether the reduction of redemption fine and penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) called for interference in the Revenue's appeal.

Analysis: The import was correctly declared, and the goods were sought to be re-exported only because the importer could not obtain the required drug import licence. The finding that there was no mala fide intention was not rebutted. In the absence of mens rea and given the circumstances leading to re-export, the reduced redemption fine and penalty were not shown to be unjustified.

Conclusion: The reduction of redemption fine and penalty was upheld and the Revenue's challenge failed.

Final Conclusion: The impugned order reducing the monetary liabilities was sustained, and the Revenue's appeal was dismissed.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are correctly declared and re-export becomes necessary only because the importer could not obtain the requisite licence, and mala fides are not established, reduction of redemption fine and penalty does not warrant interference.

---