Restricted import goods and confiscation upheld, but redemption fine and penalty reduced for absence of mala fide intention.

Marble slabs imported below the prescribed CIF value were treated as restricted goods because the import policy allowed free import only at US$ 50 per square metre or above; the lower declared value brought the goods within the restricted category and justified confiscation under customs law and the foreign trade policy. The importer was the actual user and no mala fide intention was shown, so while confiscation was sustained, the redemption fine and penalty were found excessive and reduced. The appeal therefore succeeded only to the limited extent of moderating the monetary consequences.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether marble slabs imported below the prescribed CIF value were restricted goods liable to confiscation under the customs law and foreign trade policy. (ii) Whether the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the importer required reduction in the facts of the case.

Issue (i): Whether marble slabs imported below the prescribed CIF value were restricted goods liable to confiscation under the customs law and foreign trade policy.

Analysis: The import policy permitted polished marble slabs freely only when the CIF value was US$ 50 per square metre or above. The imported goods were valued at US$ 38.470 per square metre, which placed them in the restricted category. In view of the violation of the policy condition, the goods were not freely importable and attracted confiscation under the customs provisions.

Conclusion: The goods were rightly held liable to confiscation.

Issue (ii): Whether the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the importer required reduction in the facts of the case.

Analysis: The importer was the actual user and the record did not indicate mala fide intention. In those circumstances, although confiscation was sustained, the quantum of redemption fine and penalty was considered excessive and called for moderation.

Conclusion: The redemption fine and penalty were reduced.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction in the monetary consequences, while the confiscation of the goods was maintained.

Ratio Decidendi: Goods imported in violation of a policy restriction are liable to confiscation, but the quantum of redemption fine and penalty may be reduced where the importer acts without mala fide intention and the circumstances justify leniency.

---