Imported goods confiscated for lack of BIS Registration upheld; penalty justified

The judgment upheld the confiscation of goods imported without the required BIS Registration Certificate under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act. It justified the penalty imposed under Section 112 (a) due to the appellants' awareness of the confiscation risk. The appellants were allowed to redeem the goods by paying a fine under Section 125, highlighting the lack of consideration for redemption by lower authorities. The plea for redemption was accepted, but the request for re-export was denied. The case was remanded for fresh adjudication to reassess the penalty and allow redemption of the goods.

---

---

Issues:
1. Requirement of producing BIS Registration Certificate for imported clinical thermometers.
2. Confiscation of goods under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act.
3. Imposition of penalty under Section 112 (a) of the Customs Act.
4. Redemption of goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act.

Analysis:
1. The appellants imported clinical thermometers without producing the BIS Registration Certificate, a mandatory requirement under the DGFT's Notification. The Customs Act allows confiscation of goods imported contrary to any prohibition, including those under the Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. The failure to present the certificate rendered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act. The penalty imposed under Section 112 (a) was justified as the import was made with knowledge of the confiscation risk. However, the appellants could have been allowed to redeem the goods by paying a fine under Section 125, a possibility not explored by the lower authorities. The plea for redemption was accepted, but the request for re-export was denied.

2. The plea of ignorance regarding the BIS Certificate requirement was dismissed as the appellants should have been aware of the regulation due to the public notice issued by the Customs authorities. Importing goods without the necessary certificate violated the FT (D&R) Act, making the goods "prohibited" under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act. The penalty imposed was a consequence of importing goods in violation of the law. The decision to allow redemption of the goods against a fine under Section 125 was deemed appropriate, emphasizing the lack of justification provided by the lower authorities for not considering redemption earlier.

3. The judgment set aside the orders of the lower authorities and remanded the case for fresh adjudication. The original authority was directed to allow the importer to redeem the goods by paying a reasonable fine under Section 125. The quantum of penalty was also to be reassessed after hearing the party. The appeal was allowed by remanding the case for further proceedings, focusing on redemption and penalty reassessment.

In conclusion, the judgment clarified the legal obligations regarding the BIS Registration Certificate for imported goods, upheld the confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, and highlighted the possibility of redemption under Section 125 while reiterating the penalty imposition under Section 112 (a).

---