1986 (5) TMI 134 - AT - Customs

Court allows redemption of imported disposable syringes after setting aside Customs confiscation order.

The court set aside the Collector of Customs' order confiscating disposable syringes and needles, allowing redemption on payment of a fine. The appellants ... Import Issues:Customs Act, 1962 - Sec. 111(d) and Sec. 125 - Confiscation and redemption of disposable syringes and needles under the Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1947. Interpretation of Import and Export Policy 1985-88 regarding hypodermic syringes and needles. Consideration of past clearances under Open General Licence (OGL) for similar goods. Reliance on expert opinion of the Principal of the Madras Dental College.Analysis:The appeal challenged the order of the Collector of Customs confiscating disposable syringes and needles under Sec. 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and permitting redemption on payment of a fine. The appellants imported the goods from Denmark in September 1985 under OGL but faced proceedings as the items did not match the specific category in the Import and Export Policy 1985-88. The appellants argued that similar goods had been cleared in previous years by Customs authorities under OGL, citing instances of past clearances and expert opinions supporting the classification of the goods as dental items.The consultant for the appellants presented evidence of past clearances and expert opinions, emphasizing the consistency in Customs authorities permitting clearance of identical goods under OGL. The Departmental Representative acknowledged that if past clearances were indeed granted, a reconsideration might be warranted. However, the Department contended that past practices did not bind them, especially if the goods did not align with the current import policy. The Department relied on an opinion from the Principal of the Madras Dental College to argue against the classification of the imported goods as dental items.The judge considered the submissions and highlighted the significance of past clearances and expert opinions. The judge noted the similarity between the Import Policies of different years and the relevance of the licensing authority's opinion in determining the admissibility of the goods. The judge emphasized the need for fairness in considering expert opinions and past practices of Customs authorities. Due to ambiguities in the expert opinions and the failure to address past clearances and licensing authority's opinion in the impugned order, the judge set aside the order and remitted the matter back to the original authority for a fresh consideration, ensuring the appellants are given an opportunity to be heard.In conclusion, the judgment focused on the importance of consistency in Customs practices, the relevance of expert opinions, and the necessity for a fair and thorough consideration of all evidence before making a decision on the classification and admissibility of imported goods under the relevant import policies.