2001 (3) TMI 143 - AT - Customs

Tribunal decision on import goods: some exempt, some confiscated, fine for redemption

The tribunal concluded that the goods imported as personal and household items were freely importable and not subject to confiscation. They set aside the ... Baggage - Redemption fine Issues:1. Interpretation of Import Policy regarding goods imported as personal and household items.2. Confiscation and penalty imposed on the appellant for importing goods without a license.3. Conflict between paragraphs 5.2 and 5.6 of the Export Import Policy.4. Determination of whether goods were to be considered as baggage.5. Applicability of clauses under Section 111 of the Act for confiscation.Analysis:1. The appellant imported goods described as personal and household items, which were seized by Customs officers before clearance. The Commissioner ruled that the goods were not baggage and were prohibited for import without a license, ordering their confiscation and imposing a penalty.2. The appellant argued that the Import Policy allowed the import of such goods under paragraph 5.2 by any person, including passengers. The appellant contended that the goods were not declared as baggage and should not have been seized. The appellant expressed willingness to clear certain goods but not others.3. The tribunal noted a conflict between paragraphs 5.2 and 5.6 of the Policy. While 5.2 allowed the import of goods without restrictions by any person, 5.6 restricted passengers from importing such goods without a license. The tribunal found this restriction illogical and outdated, as passengers should be allowed to import freely importable goods.4. The tribunal concluded that the goods were freely importable and not subject to confiscation. They set aside the confiscation of certain goods valued at Rs 4.24 lakhs but confirmed the confiscation of other goods. The tribunal permitted redemption of the confiscated goods upon payment of a fine.5. The tribunal directed the Commissioner to determine the redemption fine based on the sale price less duty payable, rather than the margin of profit. The penalty imposed on the appellant was confirmed, considering the circumstances of the case. The appeal was allowed in part, with the confiscation of certain goods set aside and others confirmed with the option of redemption.