2008 (9) TMI 298 - AT - Customs

Tribunal rescinds penalty, upholds confiscation for incorrect representation of India's boundaries on imported goods.

The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, rescinding the penalty but maintaining the absolute confiscation of the imported goods due to incorrect ... Import of Globe and Maps - external boundaries of India on the maps in the atlas and globes being imported were not represented correctly - as per Ministry of Home Affairs 1976 Notification, the import of maps which represent directly or indirectly incorrect frontiers of India is prohibited and though the Board has allowed such importation after affixing stamp these instructions were withdrawn in 2004 in view of Delhi High Court judgment - In view of this the confiscation of maps cannot be disputed – Penalty set aside but absolute confiscation upheld. Issues: Import of books and globes with incorrect representation of India's boundaries, confiscation of goods, imposition of penalty under Customs ActIn this judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai, the issue revolved around the import of 750 pieces of atlas (printed books) and 320 pieces of globes valued at Rs. 5,98,278.52, where it was discovered that the external boundaries of India on the maps in the imported goods were inaccurately represented. The Ministry of Finance's notification prohibited the import of any publication containing incorrect representations questioning India's frontiers or territorial integrity. Consequently, the goods were confiscated absolutely by the adjudicating authority, who also imposed a penalty of Rs. 50,000 under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, a decision later upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).The appellant argued that they had previously imported similar goods based on the Board's 1997 instructions, which allowed clearance after stamping a disclaimer about the incorrect boundaries. They contended that they believed the import was permissible and should not face penalties. They requested the option to re-export the goods instead of absolute confiscation.The Tribunal considered the submissions and noted that while the Board had previously allowed such imports with disclaimers, these instructions were withdrawn in 2004 following a Delhi High Court judgment. Therefore, the confiscation of the goods was deemed justified. However, acknowledging the appellant's reliance on outdated instructions and lack of awareness about the revised regulations, the Tribunal set aside the penalty of Rs. 50,000 but upheld the absolute confiscation of the goods.Ultimately, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal, ruling in favor of the appellant by rescinding the penalty but maintaining the absolute confiscation of the imported goods.