Judgements

Rallis India Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 2 February, 1995

Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal – Mumbai
Rallis India Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs on 2 February, 1995
Equivalent citations: 1995 (78) ELT 86 Tri Mumbai


ORDER

R. Jayaraman, Member (T)

1. This is an appeal against the Order-in-Original No. S/10-134/87-11, dated 7-9-1987 of the Collector of Customs, Bombay, ordering confiscation of ammo acid chelate which is a plant nutrient but allowing redemption of the same on payment of fine of Rs. 8.00 lacs and also imposing a penalty of Rs. 2.00 lacs on the appellants.

2. Shri R.J. Gagrat, the Ld. Advocate does not dispute that the item imported is in consumer packing ready for consumption as such by the agriculturists by mixing with water for application on the plant. However, they have not imported this as consumer product and this item is required for use in their Research and Development activities. They are mixing this with emulsifiers and using it as a raw material. Hence, they have bonafide imported under OGL. Even if they had approached the licensing authorities, they would have obtained a licence for import of the specific item. This is not an item of mass consumption to be equated with other consumer goods. This item goes specifically to the agriculturist as a plant nutrient. Hence, 100% fine is not called for. In view of their bona fides in importing the goods, penalty is also not required to be imposed.

3. Shri Nair, the Ld. SDR, however, contends that the goods have been imported in consumer packs and since they are consumer goods 100% fine is justified.

4. After hearing both the sides, we find that the goods imported cannot be compared to other items of mass consumption fetching a high margin of profit. Moreover, their plea that this item has been imported for actual use in their Research and Development activities cannot be dismissed. All the same, since the goods have been imported in consumer packing ready to use by a consumer by mixing water, the order of confiscation on merits has to be upheld. All the same, the factors pleaded by the Ld. Advocate call for leniency. In this view of the matter, we remit the penalty and also reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 4.00 lacs (Rupees four lacs only) and grant consequential relief.