Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
Use comma for multiple locations.
---------------- For section wise search only -----------------
Accuracy Level ~ 90%
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Don't have an account? Register Here
Press 'Enter' after typing page number.
Issues: Whether export of Alprazolam tablets without export authorisation attracted confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act read with the NDPS Act and NDPS Rules, and whether the penalty deserved reduction.
Analysis: Alprazolam tablets were found to fall within the schedule of psychotropic substances under the NDPS regime, making export authorisation mandatory under Rule 58 of the NDPS Rules, 1985 read with Section 8 of the NDPS Act, 1985. The absence of authorisation meant the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 113(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and penalty under Section 114(i) followed because the statutory precondition was liability to confiscation. The plea based on past exports and earlier departmental inaction was rejected as no defence to later unauthorised exports. It was also held that mens rea was not required for penalty under Section 114(i), and that no limitation barred the penalty proceedings in the present context.
Conclusion: The penalty was upheld in principle, but it was reduced from Rs. 1,00,000 to Rs. 50,000.
Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the limited extent of reduction in penalty, while the finding of liability under the confiscation and penalty provisions was maintained.
Ratio Decidendi: Where export of psychotropic substances is made without the mandatory statutory export authorisation, the goods are liable to confiscation and penalty under the Customs Act, and mens rea is not a necessary ingredient for penalty under Section 114(i).