Muthreja and Co. and ors. Vs. Collector of Customs - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
1. the two appellants imported one minolta ep-300re photocopier each as cargo by air on 30-7-1985. since the required import licence or customs clearance permit was not produced, the lower authorities have confiscated the goods absolutely. as the facts and issues involved are common in the two appeals and both arise out of the same order-in-appeal, we are making this common order to dispose of both of them.2. we have heard both sides and have carefully considered their (sic) and the record. the appellants do not dispute that the goods required an import licence or ccp. admittedly, they do not have such a licence or ccp. in fact, they never tried to obtain one. their prayer is that since the goods were licensable and hence not "absolutely prohibited", the lower authorities should not have absolutely confiscated them. they state that till august, 1985 there was a practice at delhi airport to release photocopiers on payment of fine and they want us to release their goods also on payment of suitable fine in lieu of confiscation under section 125 of the customs act, 1962. in that event, they also want that the invoice value of the goods (singapore dollars 1,700/- each plus 20% for freight and insurance) may be accepted for the purpose of assessment of duty instead of the value of rs. 14,000/- indicated by the authorities in the order-in-original as the authorities have given no reason whatsoever for rejecting the invoice value. our attention is drawn to the invoices which mention that the value given therein is low as the goods were of an absolete model. it is also stated by the appellants that the goods were a gift to them by some family friend residing abroad.3. we find no merit in the appellants' pleas. the goods are a professional equipment imported for commercial purposes and not for personal or family use. the fact that the appellants never even applied for the required import licence or ccp shows the far-from-bona fide nature of their case. in the absence of a valid import licence or ccp, the importation was clearly a prohibited one and the authorities were well within their rights to order absolute confiscation of the goods under section 125. there is no warrant in law for the contention that only absolutely prohibited goods can be confiscated absolutely. it happens at times that when prohibited goods are confiscated, the authorities give the importers an option to have the goods redeemed on payment of an adjudged amount of fine in lieu of confiscation. but there can be no question of any "practice" in such matters. each case stands on its own merits. at any rate, there is no evidence adduced on record to support the appellants' contention regarding the existence of any "practice" till august, 1985. it may be that to begin with the authorities released a few photocopiers on fine but when such unauthorised importations started arriving on a large scale, posing a danger to the up and coming home industry, they decided to be strict.there is nothing wrong in that. the lower orders are based on facts and are legally correct. since we uphold the absolute confiscation, we do not consider it necessary to go into the controversy regarding correct value of the goods.

Judgment:
1. The two appellants imported one MINOLTA EP-300RE Photocopier each as cargo by air on 30-7-1985. Since the required import licence or customs clearance permit was not produced, the lower authorities have confiscated the goods absolutely. As the facts and issues involved are common in the two appeals and both arise out of the same order-in-appeal, we are making this common order to dispose of both of them.

2. We have heard both sides and have carefully considered their (sic) and the record. The appellants do not dispute that the goods required an import licence or CCP. Admittedly, they do not have such a licence or CCP. In fact, they never tried to obtain one. Their prayer is that since the goods were licensable and hence not "absolutely prohibited", the lower authorities should not have absolutely confiscated them. They state that till August, 1985 there was a practice at Delhi Airport to release photocopiers on payment of fine and they want us to release their goods also on payment of suitable fine in lieu of confiscation under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. In that event, they also want that the invoice value of the goods (Singapore Dollars 1,700/- each plus 20% for freight and insurance) may be accepted for the purpose of assessment of duty instead of the value of Rs. 14,000/- indicated by the authorities in the order-in-original as the authorities have given no reason whatsoever for rejecting the invoice value. Our attention is drawn to the invoices which mention that the value given therein is low as the goods were of an absolete model. It is also stated by the appellants that the goods were a gift to them by some family friend residing abroad.

3. We find no merit in the appellants' pleas. The goods are a professional equipment imported for commercial purposes and not for personal or family use. The fact that the appellants never even applied for the required import licence or CCP shows the far-from-bona fide nature of their case. In the absence of a valid import licence or CCP, the importation was clearly a prohibited one and the authorities were well within their rights to order absolute confiscation of the goods under Section 125. There is no warrant in law for the contention that only absolutely prohibited goods can be confiscated absolutely. It happens at times that when prohibited goods are confiscated, the authorities give the importers an option to have the goods redeemed on payment of an adjudged amount of fine in lieu of confiscation. But there can be no question of any "practice" in such matters. Each case stands on its own merits. At any rate, there is no evidence adduced on record to support the appellants' contention regarding the existence of any "practice" till August, 1985. It may be that to begin with the authorities released a few photocopiers on fine but when such unauthorised importations started arriving on a large scale, posing a danger to the up and coming home industry, they decided to be strict.

There is nothing wrong in that. The lower orders are based on facts and are legally correct. Since we uphold the absolute confiscation, we do not consider it necessary to go into the controversy regarding correct value of the goods.