TMI Blog2011 (1) TMI 1313X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Customs Act, 1962. As such, the appellants were of the bona fide belief that the impugned goods can be imported through Tuticorin Port. Moreover, the said goods were also not on the restricted list of items under the EXIM Policy. Only after import, the appellants came to know that Rule 43A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 does not list Tuticorin Port as one of the ports through which drugs can be imported. He argues that the violation of the said restriction under the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules was totally unintentional, this has happened, for the first time in case of the appellants and that the appellants have since shifted their imports to Chennai port. He further submits that the impugned goods have been subsequently certified ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... toms Notification permitting import of all goods through a Port is a general one but specific provisions under other laws are required to be enforced. He further points out that as recorded in paragraph 6 of the impugned Order-in-Original, the Drugs Control authorities had opined that the impugned goods may be released with an instruction not to use the material until receipt of No Objection Certificate from the DGCl, while recommending for one time exemption from Port restriction under Rule 43A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945. 4. I have considered the submissions from both sides. In the case of Baccorose Perfumes (supra), the Tribunal dealt with a case where the proposal was to deal with the goods in that case under Section 111 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der the Customs Act, 1962 declaring certain ports or airports to be customs stations for import and export of all commodities. 5. In view of the fact that the appellants have imported the impugned goods in violation of Rule 43A of the Drugs and Cosmetics Rules, 1945 through Tuticorin Port, the action taken against them for confiscation of the impugned goods, imposition of redemption fine and imposition of penalty is legally justified. However, they have made out a case for leniency and the authorities below have also dealt with the appellants leniently by imposing a token penalty of ₹ 5000/- in each of two cases. The same calls for no further reduction. However, the redemption fine of ₹ 5 lakhs has been imposed in respect of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
