Import licensing for containers: unlicensed second-hand container import was treated as liable to confiscation, with redemption fine upheld.

A second-hand container imported on a non-returnable basis with a printing machine was treated as requiring separate import authorisation because it was not covered by the import licence description. The stated legal position was that the import policy reference to containers applies to commercial containers used for cargo consolidation, not to containers imported with goods on a non-returnable basis. On that basis, such an unlicensed container is liable to confiscation. The redemption fine was also examined against the container's value and the import circumstances, and was not found to be excessive. The confiscation and redemption fine were therefore sustained.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether a second-hand container imported on a non-returnable basis with a printing machine required separate import authorisation and was liable to confiscation for want of licence. (ii) Whether the redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation was excessive.

Issue (i): Whether a second-hand container imported on a non-returnable basis with a printing machine required separate import authorisation and was liable to confiscation for want of licence.

Analysis: The description in the import licence did not mention the container, and the claim that it formed part of seaworthy packing was rejected. The reference in the import policy handbook to containers was held to cover commercial containers used for consolidating cargo for transport efficiency, not containers imported on a non-returnable basis with goods. The legal position applied was that goods covered by the import control regime, including containers as movable property, cannot be imported without the requisite licence, and goods imported in contravention are liable to confiscation.

Conclusion: The container was not covered by the import licence and its confiscation was and upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation was excessive.

Analysis: The fine was examined against the value of the container and the circumstances of the import. No material was found to show that the amount fixed was unreasonable or disproportionate.

Conclusion: The redemption fine was not excessive and was upheld.

Final Conclusion: The appeal failed in full, and the confiscation order together with the redemption fine was sustained.

Ratio Decidendi: A container imported as part of a consignment is still subject to the import control regime, and where it is not covered by the import licence, it constitutes prohibited goods liable to confiscation.

---