Tribunal upholds order of confiscation and redemption fine for Neutral Malt Spirit import.

The Tribunal rejected both appeals, upholding the order of confiscation and the quantum of redemption fine. It found that the REP licence did not permit the import of Neutral Malt Spirit, there was no established nexus between the imported goods and the export product group, and the classification of Neutral Malt Spirit as Ethyl Alcohol was affirmed. The contention that Neutral Malt Spirit was consumer goods was rejected, and the quantum of redemption fine was deemed justified.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of REP licence for importing Neutral Malt Spirit.
2. Classification of Neutral Malt Spirit as Ethyl Alcohol.
3. Consideration of Neutral Malt Spirit as consumer goods.
4. Nexus between imported goods and the export product group.
5. Quantum of redemption fine.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Validity of REP Licence for Importing Neutral Malt Spirit:
The appellants imported Neutral Malt Spirit under REP licence No. P/L 3099077, issued against Product Group B-16.1 in Appendix 17 of the Policy Book AM 1985-88. The Customs authority objected, arguing that the licence pertained to "synthetic organic dyes including organic pigments," and the imported goods did not match the items required for manufacturing the export product. The Tribunal noted that the REP licence was not challenged on its validity but on its applicability for importing the subject goods. The licence was deemed not permissible for importing Neutral Malt Spirit as it did not fall within the specified product group.

2. Classification of Neutral Malt Spirit as Ethyl Alcohol:
The Tribunal referenced the Bombay High Court judgment in *Bussa Overseas and Properties Pvt. Ltd. v. Union of India*, which classified whisky concentrate as Ethyl Alcohol. The Tribunal accepted that Neutral Malt Spirit, being a whisky concentrate, falls under the category of Ethyl Alcohol. This classification was consistent with previous decisions, including *Bussa Export Corporation v. Collector of Customs*.

3. Consideration of Neutral Malt Spirit as Consumer Goods:
The Customs authority argued that Neutral Malt Spirit was a consumer good, falling under Sr. No. 121 of Appendix 2B of the Policy Book AM 1985-88. The Tribunal disagreed, stating that whisky concentrate cannot be consumed directly and must undergo further processing. Thus, it did not fit the definition of consumer goods as per para 7(13) of the policy book. The Tribunal set aside the finding that Neutral Malt Spirit was consumer goods.

4. Nexus Between Imported Goods and the Export Product Group:
The Tribunal emphasized the need for a nexus between the imported goods and the export product specified under Product Group B-16.1. The Bombay High Court in *SVA Udyog Viniyog Ltd. v. Union of India* emphasized that the import policy intended to permit imports that had a nexus with the exported products. The Tribunal noted that no effort was made to show that Neutral Malt Spirit had any nexus with the export product specified in the licence. Therefore, the import was rightly held as not permissible.

5. Quantum of Redemption Fine:
The Tribunal upheld the quantum of redemption fine imposed by the lower authority. It noted that the fine is not synonymous with a penalty but is intended to prevent extra profit from wrongdoing. Considering the high profit margin in manufacturing whisky, the redemption fine was deemed appropriate. The appellants did not contest the quantum of fine at the appeal stage, and no justifiable grounds were found to interfere with the fine.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal rejected both appeals, upholding the order of confiscation and the quantum of redemption fine. The key findings were that the REP licence did not permit the import of Neutral Malt Spirit, there was no established nexus between the imported goods and the export product group, and the classification of Neutral Malt Spirit as Ethyl Alcohol was affirmed. The contention that Neutral Malt Spirit was consumer goods was rejected, and the quantum of redemption fine was found to be justified.

---