Second-hand capital goods and technical address mismatch do not justify confiscation or penalty where no licensing bar is shown

Imported second-hand capital goods were treated as freely importable, and no material established that a specific import licence was required. The burden to show a licensing restriction lay on the Revenue, which was not discharged. A discrepancy between the address in the airway bill and the bill of entry was explained by the appellant's registered office and branch office addresses and was treated as merely technical. On that basis, the discrepancy did not justify confiscation, redemption fine, or penalty, and consequential relief followed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the imported second-hand equipment required a specific import licence, and (ii) whether discrepancy between the address shown in the airway bill and the bill of entry justified confiscation and penalty.

Issue (i): Whether the imported second-hand equipment required a specific import licence.

Analysis: The goods were admittedly old and used. The applicable policy position treated second-hand capital goods as freely importable, and the onus to establish that a specific licence was required lay on the Revenue. No material was shown to establish that the imported equipment fell within a restricted category requiring a licence.

Conclusion: The import was not shown to require a specific licence, and the objection failed.

Issue (ii): Whether discrepancy between the address shown in the airway bill and the bill of entry justified confiscation and penalty.

Analysis: The difference in addresses was explained by the presence of the appellant's registered office at one address and branch office at another. The Revenue treated the appellant as the importer and the goods were released to it. In these circumstances, the discrepancy was only technical and did not establish absence of entitlement to import or justify penal consequences.

Conclusion: The address discrepancy did not warrant confiscation, redemption fine, or penalty.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded and the order of confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty was set aside with consequential relief.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported second-hand capital goods are freely importable and no specific prohibition or licensing requirement is established, and a mere technical discrepancy in importer addresses is explained by the record, confiscation and penalty cannot be sustained.

---