Customs Tribunal Upholds Confiscation of Injection Moulding Machines

The tribunal upheld the Collector of Customs, Bombay's decision to confiscate three Injection Moulding Machines valued at Rs. 20,76,363 under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and impose a redemption fine and penalty of Rs. 1 lakh under Sections 111(d) and 112, respectively. Despite the appellants' argument of a supplier-induced model substitution due to production changes, discrepancies between licensed and actual imported models led to the rejection of the appeal. The tribunal emphasized the importance of accurate documentation and compliance with import license specifications, resulting in the dismissal of the appellants' challenge.

---

---

Issues: Challenge to confiscation of Injection Moulding Machines, imposition of redemption fine, and penalty under Customs Act, 1962.

The appellants challenged the order-in-original by the Collector of Customs, Bombay, specifically contesting the confiscation of three Injection Moulding Machines valued at Rs. 20,76,363 under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and the redemption fine imposed on these machines. Additionally, they disputed the penalty of Rs. 1 lakh imposed under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appeal did not contest other aspects of the order.

The case involved an import licensing discrepancy where the appellants were licensed to import specific models of Injection Moulding Machines. However, they imported a different quantity and model than permitted. The appellants argued that the supplier provided a different model due to production changes, but the authorities found discrepancies in the model numbers mentioned in the invoice and the actual machines imported. Despite the appellants' explanation regarding the supplier's actions, the tribunal upheld the decision, emphasizing the mismatch between the licensed model and the imported machines, leading to the rejection of the appeal.

The appellants' defense centered on the supplier's substitution of models due to discontinued production. However, the tribunal noted inconsistencies between the licensed models and the actual imports, as well as discrepancies in the documentation. Despite the appellants' admission of excess imports, attributing it to the supplier's actions, the tribunal emphasized the importance of accurate documentation and compliance with the import license specifications. Consequently, the tribunal rejected the appeal, highlighting the appellants' failure to adhere to the licensed import specifications, leading to the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty under the Customs Act, 1962.

---