Confiscation for breached import conditions upheld, but later compliance justified reduction of redemption fine and penalty.

Imported goods without labels and without the required registration certificate under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 were liable to confiscation for breach of import conditions and attracted penalty under the Customs Act, 1962. Because the importer had applied for registration and obtained the certificate later, the lapse was treated as procedural rather than a refusal to comply, so the monetary consequences were moderated. Confiscation was sustained, but the redemption fine and penalty were reduced further on the facts.

---

---

Issues: Whether the redemption fine and penalty sustained in the impugned order were justified in view of the appellant's non-compliance with the labelling and registration requirements.

Analysis: The imported goods were found to be without labels and the appellant had not produced the registration certificate required under the Legal Metrology (Packaged Commodities) Rules, 2011 at the time of import. This amounted to a contravention of the applicable import conditions and attracted confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, as well as liability to penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the record showed that the appellant had applied for registration and the certificate was obtained later, indicating that the lapse was procedural in nature. In these circumstances, the monetary consequences required moderation.

Conclusion: The confiscation was sustained, but the redemption fine and penalty were reduced further.

Ratio Decidendi: Where imported goods are liable to confiscation for breach of statutory import conditions, but the importer shows that compliance was delayed rather than refused and the requisite registration was subsequently obtained, the fine and penalty may be reduced on the facts of the case.

---