Pre-shipment inspection lapse alone does not justify confiscation when imported goods match the declaration and no prohibited material is found.

A procedural defect in the pre-shipment inspection certificate arrangement, by itself, does not make an import confiscable when the consignment is found to match the declaration and no prohibited material is detected. The imported scrap was examined and found to be as declared, and the defect arose only because the performing inspection office was not listed in Appendix 28 of the Handbook of Procedures. On that basis, confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were unsustainable, because the import policy concern was to prevent prohibited goods from entering the country, not to punish an exporter-side lapse in the inspection mechanism where the goods themselves were otherwise compliant.

---

---

Issues: Whether confiscation of the imported scrap and the levy of redemption fine and penalty were justified when the pre-shipment inspection certificate was issued through a performing office not listed in Appendix 28 of the Handbook of Procedures.

Analysis: The import was supported by a pre-shipment inspection certificate issued by the Mumbai office, with the performing office shown as Bureau Veritas, Madagascar, which was not listed in Appendix 28. The goods were examined and found to be as declared, and there was no material to show that the consignment contained any objectionable material. The legal requirement under the import policy was directed to ensuring that prohibited items were not imported, and the defect, if any, lay in the exporter-side compliance with the prescribed inspection arrangement. Following the principle applied in the cited Gujarat High Court decision, a procedural lapse in the certificate arrangement, without any tainted goods or improper import, does not justify treating the import as confiscable.

Conclusion: Confiscation, redemption fine and penalty were not sustainable and were set aside in favour of the assessee.

Final Conclusion: The import was held not to be liable to confiscation merely because the performing inspection office was not listed, where the consignment matched the declaration and no prohibited goods were found.

Ratio Decidendi: A procedural defect in the pre-shipment inspection arrangement does not by itself make the import improper or confiscable when the goods are otherwise as declared and no prohibited material is found.

---