TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (7) TMI 226
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ustoms (Airport Special Cargo), Mumbai pertaining to the same consignments - live and past - of 'intra ocular lens' imported by post that were subjected to the adjudication proceedings and are disposed off in this common proceedings. Besides differential duty of Rs. 1,69,74,756 ordered to be recovered under section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 on 8332 nos. of lens in earlier imports of 49 consignments now re-assessed on value of Rs.4,05,28,010 and re-assessment of the consignments under clearance on enhanced value of Rs. 8,03,034 that were, additionally, confiscated without option of redemption in the impugned order, the adjudicating authority held 5977 nos. valued at Rs. 2,90,72,962 from past consignments to be liable to absolute confiscation for contraventions pertaining to medical devices under section 111 (d) of Customs Act, 1962 while the other 2355 nos. of 'lens' valued at Rs. 1,14,55,048 from past imports were held as confiscable under section 111(m) of Customs Act, 1962 but, not subject to any prohibition, was offered for redemption on payment of Rs. 11,00,000 under section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 besides imposing penalty of Rs. 1,69,74,756 under section 114A of Customs Act, 19....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and sense of accountability, with goods so confiscated is not within the scope of an adjudication order. Furthermore, authority vested in 'proper officer' by '47. Clearance of goods for home consumption. [(1)] Where the proper officer is satisfied that any goods entered for home consumption are not prohibited goods and the importer has paid the import duty, if any, assessed thereon and any charges payable under this Act in respect of the same, the proper officer may make an order permitting clearance of the goods for home consumption. (2) The importer shall pay the import duty - (a) on the date of presentation of the bill of entry in the case of self-assessment; or (b) within one day (excluding holidays) from the date on which the bill of entry is returned to him by the proper officer for payment of duty in the case of assessment, reassessment or provisional assessment; or (c) in the case of deferred payment under the proviso to sub-section (1), from such due date as may be specified by rules made in this behalf, and if he fails to pay the duty within the time so specified, he shall pay interest on the duty not paid or ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d to Epsilon Eye Care Centre, Kandivli, Mumbai on 24th September 2022 under process in APSO, Mumbai that, on examination, turned out to be 141 nos. of 'Medennium Matrix foldable intraocular lens' suspected to have been undervalued. Search of the said premises did not yield anything of consequence except that of occasional storage of goods manufactured at their factory in Valsad and 2598 nos. of unusable 'intraocular lens' sourced from Eyekon Medical Inc and 24 nos. of 'Medennium Matrix foldable intraocular lens' well within indicated 'shelf life' also sourced from Eyekon Medical Inc. It was ascertained during investigation that 'intraocular lens' were being imported by 'post parcels' through APSO, Mumbai as well as through Air Cargo Complex (ACC) and that their licence from Central Drugs Standard Control Organisation (CDSCO), initially valid from January 2017 to January 2020, was revalidated only in October 2022 though reapplied for in May 2022 with easing off of pandemic. In October 2022, the importer remitted Rs. 1,00,00,000 towards potential liability. From investigation, it was also ascertained that 8332 nos. of 'intra ocular lens' in 49 consignments had been cleared through AP....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Epsilon Eye Care Pvt. Ltd., no records/documents were found, which provides the segregation of imported Intraocular Lenses model wise. 21.2 In absence of the proper records/documents of imported Intraocular Lenses (model wise), the value of Intraocular Lenses imported vide past postal articles in last five years, has been ascertained on the basis of following aspects: - i) The importer has mis-declared the goods in terms of description and value in respect of past import too. On perusal of commercial invoices of past postal articles, it was observed that the model number of intraocular lenses has not been mentioned. Hence, it appears that the importer has imported high valued (USD 65) Intraocular Lenses of model 404/400 through APSO, Vile Parle, Mumbai, as similar lenses have been imported by M/s Epsilon Eye Care Pvt. Ltd. through Air Cargo Complex, Mumbai vide B.E. No. 6567899 dated 21.01.2020 (as detailed in TABLE-E). The importer declared the goods, imported at APSO, as Mixed Lens, to evade legitimate Customs Duty. ii) During the investigation, analysis of sale invoices of the company M/s Epsilon Eye Care Pvt. Ltd. was done and it was observed that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....es to adjudicate consequence of non-possession of licence when their application for re-licencing had been preferred well before the imports that got intercepted even though approval was accorded for renewal and that, in any case, valid licence was available at the time of adjudication; furthermore, he contended that, in the absence of relevant dates of specific imports, it was not legal to take recourse to section 28 of Customs Act, 1962 for past imports or to attribute the imports for five years to the short period, and particularly when implant surgery was virtually non-existent, between February 2020 and May 2022. 6. Learned Counsel submitted that the impugned order had travelled beyond show cause notice which would be the consequence in the event of success of appeal of the jurisdictional Commissioner of Customs. In support thereof, he placed reliance on the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. Toyo Engineering India Ltd [2006 (201) ELT 513 (SC)], in Commissioner of Central Excise, Nagpur v. Ballarpur Industries Ltd [2007 (215) ELT 489 (SC)] and in Commissioner of Central Excise v. Gas Authority of India Ltd [2008 (232) ELT 7 (SC)]. On....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ree issues sequentially. It is common ground that the goods were imported through post which operates in its own special framework both for rate of duty and for valuation; such imports have like implications insofar as restrictions on trade imports are concerned. 9. The appellant had applied for renewal of licence and imports were effected between then and receipt of renewed licence. As at the time of adjudication, licence was available, seizure on that ground should have been vacated. Insofar as earlier imports are concerned, the adjudicating authority has tied itself up in knots. On the one hand, it is enunciated that absolute confiscation was warranted while, on the other, additional resource mobilization for the exchequer was accepted as adequate fiscal restitution. Thus, prohibitions, by that logic, are amenable to fiscal deprivation for overcoming even legislated bar. Leaving that aside, the authority has been drawn from Drugs & Cosmetics Act, 1940; while the impugned goods may be covered by 'lens' and, as established by the notification, was indeed so, the enforcement jurisdiction is restricted to the place of import. Any breach detected thereafter is breach of law in mun....