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 contravention, and short payment of duty under section 28 of the Customs Act, 1962. CESTAT had held that the foundations for confiscation, penalties, and differential duty-lack of licence and comparison with imports at Air Cargo Complex-were unsustainable in law. SC found no reason to interfere, especially as the importer possessed a valid licence on the date of adjudication. The issue of post-clearance confiscation after goods leave the port was left open.

---

---

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.

---