Import-policy breach and actual user violations can justify confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty, with remand for fresh quantification.

Breach of import-policy conditions, including the actual user requirement for second-hand machinery, renders the goods confiscable and can attract redemption fine and personal penalty even if the goods are no longer available. The record showed the imports were declared for actual use but were intended for sale in the local market, and the retraction of statements did not displace the surrounding admissions and material proving violation. At the same time, where the redemption option and consequential directions are not properly framed, the adjudication is defective and the matter must be remitted for de novo determination of fine and penalty on a correct factual and legal basis.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether imported second-hand machinery imported subject to the actual user condition and EXIM policy restrictions was liable to confiscation, redemption fine and penalty. (ii) Whether the adjudication orders were vitiated and required remand because the redemption option and consequential directions were not properly framed, and because the quantum of fine and penalty required reconsideration.

Issue (i): Whether imported second-hand machinery imported subject to the actual user condition and EXIM policy restrictions was liable to confiscation, redemption fine and penalty.

Analysis: The imports were found to have been made on declarations that the goods would be used by the importers as actual users, but the record showed that the machines were intended for sale in the local market and that the import conditions had been breached. The retraction of statements did not displace the admissions and surrounding material showing violation of the policy conditions. The decision also applied the principle that once goods are found confiscable for breach of import restrictions, redemption fine is not excluded merely because the goods are not available or have been sold, and personal penalty may also follow according to the facts.

Conclusion: The machinery was liable to confiscation and the principles governing redemption fine and penalty operated against the assessees.

Issue (ii): Whether the adjudication orders were vitiated and required remand because the redemption option and consequential directions were not properly framed, and because the quantum of fine and penalty required reconsideration.

Analysis: The orders were found defective because, in the case of seized machines, the authority had not clearly specified the person to whom the redemption option was to be granted. In several matters the goods had been held confiscable, but the exact manner of confiscation, redemption and penalty had to be reconsidered in the light of the governing law and the factual position as to availability, sale, ownership and actual user status. The Tribunal therefore held that the proper course was de novo adjudication by the original authority after hearing the appellants.

Conclusion: The impugned orders were set aside and the matters were remanded for fresh adjudication on fine and penalty.

Final Conclusion: The appeals were not finally decided on the merits of the confiscation and penalty issues; the Tribunal upheld the legal basis for action on policy violation but sent the matters back for fresh determination of the consequential reliefs and quantum.

Ratio Decidendi: Breach of import-policy conditions, including the actual user obligation, renders the goods confiscable and permits redemption fine and penalty even where the goods are not presently available, but the adjudicating authority must frame the redemption order correctly and exercise the discretion on fine and penalty afresh on a proper factual and legal basis.

---