Import licence and warehousing under Exim Policy shaped confiscation, while redemption fine and penalty were reduced as disproportionate.

Imported marble blocks were treated as liable to confiscation and penalty where the required import licence was not produced and customs warehousing had not been permitted, so liability in principle was sustained. The commentary also notes that, under the Exim Policy, warehousing could be relevant to clearance from warehouse rather than importation itself; because warehousing was unavailable and the goods were Italian marble blocks, the redemption fine and penalty were considered disproportionate and were reduced.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether confiscation of the imported marble blocks and imposition of penalty were justified in the absence of an import licence. (ii) Whether the redemption fine and penalty imposed were excessive in the light of the warehousing facility under the Exim Policy.

Issue (i): Whether confiscation of the imported marble blocks and imposition of penalty were justified in the absence of an import licence.

Analysis: The import licence required for clearance of marble blocks had not been produced. The goods had been imported under an in-bond Bill of Entry, but warehousing had not been permitted by the customs authorities. In the absence of the licence, the goods were liable to confiscation and penal consequences followed.

Conclusion: Confiscation of the imported goods and imposition of penalty were upheld.

Issue (ii): Whether the redemption fine and penalty imposed were excessive in the light of the warehousing facility under the Exim Policy.

Analysis: The Exim Policy permitted warehousing of imported marble blocks, and the import licence was relevant at the stage of clearance from warehouse rather than at the stage of importation. Since warehousing had not been allowed and the goods were Italian marble blocks, the quantum of redemption fine and penalty was considered disproportionate to the special circumstances of the case.

Conclusion: The redemption fine and penalty were reduced.

Final Conclusion: The appeal succeeded only to the extent of reduction in the monetary penalties, while confiscation and liability in principle were maintained.

---