Unauthorised import and redemption fine: separate certification was not proved, but confiscation was sustained with reduced fine.

Mere inclusion of the controller cards' value in the invoice for a Winchester disc drive did not by itself prove that the Department of Electronics had authorised their separate import, so the import was treated as unauthorised and the goods were liable to confiscation. The cited Supreme Court ruling on penalty was inapplicable because no penalty had been imposed. While sustaining confiscation, the tribunal reduced the redemption fine after considering the appellant's actual user status and the facts of the case.

---

---

Issues: Whether controller cards imported along with the Winchester disc drive were liable to be treated as a separate import requiring a licence, and whether the redemption fine called for reduction.

Analysis: The description in the invoice and the concessional duty certificate did not establish that the Department of Electronics had certified import of the controller cards as such. Mere inclusion of the value of the controller cards in the value of the disc drive was held insufficient. The cited Supreme Court decision on penalty was found inapplicable because no penalty had been imposed. However, the appellant's status as an actual user was taken into account while considering the quantum of fine.

Conclusion: The goods were held liable to confiscation, but the redemption fine was reduced from Rs. 43,000 to Rs. 22,000.

Final Conclusion: The import was upheld as unauthorised, but the appellant obtained partial relief on the quantum of redemption fine.

Ratio Decidendi: Mere inclusion of the value of an item in the value of another imported unit does not, without material showing intended certification or authorisation of that separate item, establish lawful import of the item; where confiscation is sustained, the fine may be moderated on the facts, including actual user status.

---