ORDER
Archana Wadhwa, Member (J)
1. After hearing the learned Advocate, Shri Biswajit Mukherjee for the appellant company and Shri Uday Kumar, learned J.D.R. for the Revenue, we find that the appellant company imported Concentrates of Alcoholic Beverages declared as Undenatured Ethyl Alcohol. The total value of the consignment was around Rs. 18.00 lakh (Rupees eighteen lakh). Inasmuch as the appellant company was required to import the said goods under a licence, proceedings were initiated against them for confiscation of the goods in question. During the course of adjudication, the appellant company contended before the Commissioner that prior to importation of the goods in question, the appellant company had sought clarification before import, from the concerned Assessing Group regarding the licensing aspect and the Group had given clarification that the goods were freely importable without any licence. In this view of the matter, the confiscation of the same was not justified. However, the Commissioner of Customs held that inasmuch as the goods were imported without a licence, they were liable to confiscation. Accordingly, he confiscated the goods with an option to the appellant company to redeem the same on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 55.00 lakh (Rupees fifty-five lakh), after observing that the margin of profit works out to 350% on the declared CIF value. For arriving at the above margin of profit, he took into consideration the Press Clippings of “Times of India, Bombay”, showing that various whisky bottled in India from imported Concentrates were sold in retail per bottle of 750 ml. Between Rs. 400/- to Rs. 900/- From the above method of calculation, the Commissioner arrived at the margin of profit.
2. It is the submission of the learned Advocate that the above method of arriving at the margin of profit by taking into consideration the value of the bottled whisky is not correct inasmuch as the goods in question were Alcoholic Beverage Concentrates out of which the whisky was manufactured and bottled. In any case, learned Advocate contends that taking into consideration that the appellant company acted on the advice of the Revenue, imposition of redemption fine of Rs. 55.00 lakh (Rupees fifty-five lakh) is much on the higher side.
3. After hearing the learned J.D.R. for the Revenue, we find that before importing the goods, the appellant company vide its letter dated 31.12.93 addressed to the Assistant Commissioner of Customs, sought clarification as regards the licensing angle. The Assistant Commissioner of Customs vide its letter dated 4.4.94, intimated the appellant company that the Undenatured Ethyl Alcohol was freely importable without coverage of any ITC Licence, provided that the said Alcohol was not meant for direct human consumption. It is not disputed that the goods were not meant for direct human consumption being concentrate. In view of the above clarification, the appellant company was justified in importing the goods without any licence. As such, we are of the view that the imposition of heavy redemption fine is not called for. The importation of the goods in question without a licence, in the present circumstances, has to be considered as a technical offence. Accordingly, in the peculiar facts and circumstances, we reduce the redemption fine to a token amount of Rs. 5.00 lakh (Rupees five lakh). But for the above modification in the quantum of redemption fine, the appeal is otherwise rejected.