1992 (1) TMI 220 - AT - Customs

Customs Tribunal: Bona Fide Belief Not Relevant for Confiscation

COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS Versus LUXOR PEN COMPANY

The Tribunal emphasized that the plea of bona fide belief is not relevant for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, for prohibited ... Redemption fine Issues:1. Whether the plea of bona fide belief is relevant for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962Rs.2. Is it necessary to prove mala fide intention or mens rea under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962Rs.Analysis:Issue 1:The first issue revolves around the relevance of a bona fide belief in cases where goods imported attract Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal emphasized that the liability to confiscation under Section 111(d) is absolute for prohibited goods, leaving no room for the consideration of a bona fide belief on the part of the importer. The Tribunal clarified that the provision does not allow for the imposition of a bona fide belief as a defense in such cases.Issue 2:The second issue questions the necessity of proving mala fide intention or mens rea while invoking Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal deliberated on whether the intention behind the act is crucial in cases of confiscation or redemption fine. The respondents argued that the liability to confiscation does not imply an absolute obligation, citing legal interpretations that suggest the term 'liable' does not mandate an absolute penalty. They referred to a Supreme Court decision highlighting the relevance of bona fide conduct in determining the quantum of redemption fine.The case in question involved the import of nylon yarn under OGL clearance, which was not accepted due to a registration issue with the Textile Commissioner. The goods were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option for redemption without penalty due to the absence of mala fide intention. The Tribunal, considering the bona fide conduct of the importers and the delay in registration, ruled against confiscation or redemption fine.In the final judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the reference application by the revenue department. It was concluded that the questions raised did not constitute points of law arising from the Tribunal's order. The Tribunal highlighted that the decision was based on the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the bona fide conduct of the party, and not on the interpretation of Section 111(d) regarding intention or redemption fine.This detailed analysis encapsulates the key legal issues, arguments presented by both parties, and the Tribunal's reasoning leading to the dismissal of the reference application.