Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2022 (5) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (5) TMI 1318 - AT - CustomsMisdeclaration and undervaluation of imported goods - Cosmetic goods - not supported with certificate of the Controller of Drugs and Cosmetics Organization (CDSCO) - Absolute Confiscation - levy of penalty u/s 112 (a)& 114 AA of the CA, 1962 - whether the request for re-export of the imported cosmetics of 2,19,435 pieces, without CDSCO certificate, and 35,712 pieces with CDSCO certificate be allowed or otherwise? - HELD THAT:- There is no doubt that since the goods are not supported with CDSCO certificate definitely be considered as prohibited under the Drugs and Cosmetics Act, 1940 and the rules made thereunder and the consequence thereof is confiscation. But, simultaneously, it cannot be ignored that some procedure has been prescribed under Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 to mitigate such a situation where the imported cosmetics are found to be in contravention with the provisions of Drugs and Cosmetics Act and the rules made thereunder. Under sub-rule(3) of Rule 131 of the said Rules, the Collector of Customs(now Commissioner) is duty bound to communicate to the importer to exercise their option either to re-export the goods to the country of origin or allow the Central Government to take possession of it and destroy the same accordingly. Therefore, it is a statutory right available to an importer which cannot be overlooked by the department; the importer should have been allowed to exercise the option to re-export the goods, as prayed for. Also, the principle laid down by this Tribunal in NATHI MAL RUGAN MAL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NHAVA SHEVA, RAIGAD [2018 (11) TMI 99 - CESTAT MUMBAI] relied by the Commissioner in directing absolute confiscation is not applicable to the facts of the present case, for the simple reason that the Tribunal in the said case was confronted with the question whether after allowing redemption of the goods on payment of appropriate fine, the assessee be forced to export the goods only and not allowed to dispose the same in any other manner including clearance for home consumption. In the present case, however, no such situation arose. On the contrary, the Appellant has requested for re-export of the goods. There are no justification in the impugned order directing absolute confiscation of the imported cosmetics of 2,19,435 pieces, instead of allowing re-export of the same following the procedure laid down under Rule 131(3) of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. The said order of confiscation is set aside and the re-export of 2,19,435 pieces is allowed. In view of the prayer for re-export of the balance 35,712 pieces valued at Rs.20,95,104/- (supported with CDSCO certificate), confiscation is also set aside and the appellant is permitted to re-export the goods. The question of mis- declaration becomes immaterial in view of the prayer for re- export, in accordance with law. We also observe that the appellant has already suffered loss in the whole process (part charges, demurrage, etc.) and thus, the fine and penalties imposed on all the appellants is set aside. The penalties imposed on all the individual appellants viz. Shri Sunil Yadav - Director, Shri Siddiq Yusuf Merchant, and also on Shri Sandip Tandekar - Power of Attorney Holder of CHA also set aside. Appeal allowed.
|