re-export with redemption and imposition of penalty to the tune of 100% value is arbitrary. On the other hand, counsel for the Revenue points out that the rule i.e. especially Rule 113 which in turn refers to Rule 43A remains unchanged which means that for the kind of goods which the petitioner sought to import to India, the concerned port i.e. the inland port at ICD Tughlakabad continued to be so. Barring an amendment, this legal position could not have been disturbed by the mere issuance of a NOC or even CONCOR’s decision to direct importers of a particular class of goods to land their goods in one of its inland container ports. Apparently, the petitioner had in the past been resorting to imports at ICD Tughlakabad from where its goods were cleared. Although, there seems to be some merit in the argument that it was compelled to import the goods at ICD Dadri on account of CONCOR’s decision (for which some kind of generic approval appeared to be forthcoming from the Assistant Drug Controller), nevertheless, it cannot claim ignorance of Rules 43A/113 which continue as it were unamended. Consequently, the decision of the Customs Authorities with respect to the lawfulness of imports at ICD Dadri per se cannot be faulted. At the same time, this Court is of the opinion that absolute confiscation without the option of redemption was not justified in the given circumstances, having regard to the previous conduct of the petitioner. Furthermore, the penalty imposed (to the tune of 100%) appears to be excessive. In these circumstances, the impugned order to the extent it confiscates W.P.(C) 9511/2018 Page 3 of 4
