1990 (10) TMI 189 - AT - Customs

Customs Tribunal overturns fine on orthopaedic appliances, finding proactive compliance by appellants.

The appeal was directed against the order of the Collector of Customs, Air Port, Bombay, which confiscated orthopaedic appliances valued at Rs. 2,69,442 ... Redemption fine in lieu of confiscation Issues:- Confiscation of orthopaedic appliances by the Collector of Customs- Allegation of unauthorized import and imposition of fine- Appeal against the order of confiscation and fineConfiscation of Orthopaedic Appliances:The appeal was directed against the order of the Collector of Customs, Air Port, Bombay, which ordered the confiscation of orthopaedic appliances valued at Rs. 2,69,442 but allowed re-shipment on payment of a fine of Rs. 60,000. The appellants, who regularly imported surgical goods and orthopaedic appliances from Australian suppliers, received a consignment not ordered by them. They immediately notified the suppliers to return the goods, initiated correspondences, and filed a Bill of Entry for re-export. The Customs authorities alleged that the goods were not covered under the Open General License (OGL) and confiscated them. The appellants argued that the goods were dumped on them by the suppliers and that they took prompt action to rectify the situation before filing the Bill of Entry.Allegation of Unauthorized Import and Imposition of Fine:The Collector held that the goods valued at nearly Rs. 2.69 lakhs would not have been sent without a firm order, leading to the suspicion of unauthorized import. The Customs authorities contended that the appellants created a story of wrong shipment after realizing that some items were not on the OGL list. They justified the confiscation and imposition of a fine based on the filing of the Bill of Entry by the appellants, indicating an unauthorized import.Appeal Against the Order of Confiscation and Fine:After considering the correspondences and facts presented, the Tribunal observed that the appellants had proactively addressed the issue of the unordered goods with the suppliers before filing the Bill of Entry. The Tribunal found that the Collector's finding that the goods were ordered was based on presumption without tangible evidence. Despite technical considerations, the Tribunal concluded that the imposition of a redemption fine was unjustified. The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the order imposing a fine of Rs. 60,000 and granting consequential relief to the appellants.This judgment highlights the importance of prompt action and clear communication in cases of unordered goods, emphasizing that proactive measures taken by importers can influence the outcome of confiscation orders.