ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. Vide the impugned orders the authorities below have confiscated the glass beeds imported by the appellant with an option to them to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine on the ground that the same required a licence, whereas the appellant have imported goods under OGL. For identical reasons penalties have also been imposed upon them in all the three cases.
2. Shri Naresh Thacker, learned Advocate appealing for the appellant submits that glass beeds were imported by the appellants under OGL for a number of years. The present consignments were imported in June and July, 1992 under OGL. However, the customs authorities entertained a doubt about the glass beeds being consumer goods and as such requiring a licence for which purpose they made a reference to the DGFT authorities. DGFT vide its clarification dated 04/06/1993 opined that, the finished glass beeds being consumer item, were not freely importable. On the above basis the appellants were issued a show cause notice. It is the contention of the learned Advocate that the department’s opinion changed with the issuance of the DGFT circular in June, 1993 whereas the import had taken place in 1992 itself and in terms of the previous clearances being under OGL, with the consent and knowledge of the customs authorities, no offence can be said to have been committed by the appellant in importing the present consignment under OGL. He submits that it is well settled law that where identical consignments had been cleared previously without any objection from the customs authorities no penalty should he imposed upon the appellant and the goods should not be confiscated.
3. We have also heard Shri A. Shukla, learned SDR for the Revenue. Shri Shukla argued that admittedly in terms of the DGFT circular the goods were consumer goods requiring an import licence. The opinion of DGFT is final, in terms of para 20 of the Import Policy 1992-97. Inasmuch as the import was made without a valid licence, the goods become offending goods, thus justifying their confiscation.
4. We have considered the submissions made by both sides. We find that it is an admitted case of the Revenue that earlier the glass beeds were being imported under OGL without any objection by the Revenue. In fact the show cause notice itself mentions that on a doubt being raised the opinion of the DGFT was sought, which opinion came on 04/06/1993. As such the appellants cannot be said to have committed any offence, thus justifying any penal action against them. Accordingly we set aside the personal penalties of Rs. 10,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- and Rs. 7,000/- imposed in each of the bill of entry.
5. As regards the confiscation, the appellant has been given an option to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 30,000/-, Rs. 1,50,000/- and Rs. 20,000/- in respect of each bill of entry. In view of the fact that the confiscability of the goods have arisen on account of opinion of the Revenue authorities and on change in interpretation of the provisions of the policy, we are of the view that the quantum of fine requires reduction. Accordingly we reduce the redemption fine in each case to 50% of the amounts imposed.
6. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.
(Pronounced in Court)