2025 (11) TMI 1576 - SCH - Customs

Revenue appeal on intra ocular lens imports under Customs Act section 28 rejected; confiscation and penalty grounds held unsustainable

SC dismissed the revenue's appeal against CESTAT's order in a dispute over imported intra ocular lenses involving alleged mis-declaration, licence ... Valuation - Scope of SCN - Absolute confiscation - imported intra ocular lens - mis-declaration of goods - contravention of licence requirements - short payment of duty - section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 - it was held by CESTAT that 'Both the pillars for confiscation, penalties and differential duty, viz., lack of licence and comparison with imports at Air Cargo Complex (ACC), the consequences of adjudication is without authority of law.' HELD THAT:- There are no good reason to entertain this appeal(s), particularly when it is found that on the date of the adjudication, the importer held a valid license. However, the question as to whether the Custom Authorities would have a right to confiscate the goods after they had left the Port, is kept open. Appeal dismissed. The Supreme Court condoned the delay and heard the appellant (Customs authorities). It noted the factual position and the reasoning in the impugned order, emphasizing that 'on the date of the adjudication, the importer held a valid license.' In view of this, the Court held that it did not find 'a good reason to entertain this appeal(s),' thereby upholding the decision in favour of the importer. Crucially, the Court expressly left unresolved the legal issue concerning post-clearance powers of Customs, stating that 'the question as to whether the Custom Authorities would have a right to confiscate the goods after they had left the Port, is kept open.' Subject to this reservation on the confiscation issue, the appeal was dismissed and all pending applications were ordered to stand closed.