Tribunal upholds fine for contaminated goods import but sets aside penalty, citing compliance efforts.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, upholding the confiscation and redemption fine imposed on the appellant for importing contaminated goods. The penalty was set aside as unjustified, considering the steps taken by the appellant to comply with regulations. The Tribunal found discrepancies in certification between the Port of Export and Import, rendering the goods ineligible for clearance into India. The decision was pronounced openly on 29-5-2018, clarifying the issues raised and the Tribunal's findings.

---

---

Issues:
Import of contaminated goods, Confiscation under Customs Act, 1962, Principles of natural justice violation, Redemption fine imposition, Penalty justification

Analysis:
1. The appellant imported goods declared as "Mari Gold Seeds" accompanied by Psyto Sanitary Certificates from China certifying freedom from Quarantine Weed Seeds. However, Plant Quarantine authorities in India found contamination with Quarantine Weed, leading to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option for re-export on payment of redemption fine and imposition of penalty.

2. The appellant challenged the order on grounds of having obtained the required certificates at the Port of Export, satisfying Plant Quarantine regulations, and claiming no waiver of show cause notice despite requesting re-export. The Tribunal upheld the confiscation, citing the discrepancy in certification between the Port of Export and Import, making the goods ineligible for clearance into India.

3. Regarding the waiver issue, the Tribunal noted the appellant's awareness of the non-clearance by Plant Quarantine authorities, deeming the absence of an explicit show cause notice not a serious violation of natural justice principles. The Tribunal upheld the redemption fine of &8377; 30,00,000, considering it reasonable in the circumstances.

4. The appellant's argument of having taken reasonable steps by obtaining certificates at the Port of Export was acknowledged, leading to the setting aside of the penalty imposed. The Tribunal found the penalty unjustified, given the steps taken by the appellant to ensure compliance with relevant regulations.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, upholding the confiscation and redemption fine while setting aside the penalty. The decision was pronounced openly on 29-5-2018, providing clarity on the issues raised and the Tribunal's findings on each aspect of the case.

---