Tribunal allows redemption of goods despite mis-declaration, emphasizing distinction between restricted and prohibited items.

The Tribunal overturned the order for re-export of goods due to mis-declaration and hazardous nature, allowing redemption on payment of fines. It emphasized that the goods were restricted, not prohibited, based on a Chartered Engineer's report, and cited judicial precedents supporting redemption for restricted items. The decision upheld the appellant's right to redeem the goods, highlighting the distinction between restricted and prohibited goods, ultimately reinstating the Adjudicating Authority's decision for redemption on payment of fines.

---

---

Issues:
Appeal against modification of order for re-export of goods due to mis-declaration and hazardous nature of items.

Analysis:
The appellant imported Heavy melting scrap in August 2013, which was found to have slags and sculls. A Chartered Engineer report confirmed the irregular shape material with ferrous material mixed with impurities. The Adjudicating Authority held the goods were mis-declared and confiscated them, allowing redemption on payment of a fine and imposing a penalty. The Revenue appealed, arguing the items were hazardous and prohibited goods. The Ld. Commissioner (A) agreed, directing re-export of the goods. The appellant contended that the items were restricted, not prohibited, citing judicial pronouncements supporting redemption on payment of fines.

The key issue was whether the goods could be redeemed based on the Chartered Engineer's report stating the items appeared non-hazardous. The Tribunal noted the report's visual examination and expert opinion, emphasizing that the report should be accepted in full. It highlighted that the items were restricted, not prohibited, citing judicial precedents allowing redemption on payment of fines for restricted items. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the order for re-export and reinstated the Adjudicating Authority's decision, allowing redemption on payment of fines.

The Tribunal's decision was based on the distinction between restricted and prohibited goods, emphasizing that the items in question were restricted and could be redeemed on payment of fines. By following judicial pronouncements and accepting the Chartered Engineer's report, the Tribunal concluded that the goods could be imported on payment of redemption fine and penalty. The decision clarified the nature of the goods and upheld the appellant's right to redeem them, overturning the order for re-export.

---