Aadrikaa Legal Services (ALS) – IDT Tax I Arbitration I Litigation
Date: 01.07.2026
CESTAT Chandigarh Sets Aside Confiscation and Penalties for Technical Lapse in Pre-Shipment Inspection Certificate
This Short Article has been prepared & written by Advocate Ravi Shekhar Jha-Delhi High Court, New Delhi. The views expressed are based on his interpretation of the law. He can be reached at his email id intelconsul@gmail.com .
The Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (CESTAT) Chandigarh recently delivered a significant judgment in favor of M/s Sona Casting Pvt Ltd, setting aside confiscation and penalties imposed for alleged violations in the import of heavy melting scrap. This article provides a detailed overview of the case, the legal arguments, and the implications for importers and customs compliance in India.
Background of the Case
Sona Casting Pvt Ltd, an importer of heavy melting scrap, filed a Bill of Entry for goods arriving from Guyana. The company submitted a Pre-Shipment Inspection Certificate (PSIC) issued by M/s Asia Inspection Agency Ltd, which was empanelled with the Directorate General of Foreign Trade (DGFT). However, the customs authorities found that this agency was not authorized to operate in Guyana, rendering the PSIC invalid under DGFT Public Notice No. 48/2015-20.
As a result, customs authorities seized the goods, treating them as ‘prohibited’ under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Adjudicating Authority ordered confiscation, allowed re-export on payment of a redemption fine of Rs. 8,00,000, and imposed penalties totaling Rs. 8,00,000 under Sections 112 and 114AA. Sona Casting’s appeal to the Commissioner (Appeals) was rejected, leading to the present appeal before CESTAT Chandigarh.
Key Legal Arguments
Appellant’s Submissions
- Substantial Compliance: Sona Casting argued that the goods were inspected by a DGFT-empanelled agency, and later, a post-shipment inspection by an approved Indian agency confirmed compliance with safety and radiation norms.
- No Prohibition, Only Conditionality: The company contended that the Customs Act defines ‘prohibited goods’ as those not meeting import conditions. Since the post-shipment inspection confirmed compliance, the goods should not be treated as prohibited.
- Purpose of PSIC: The primary intent of the PSIC requirement is to ensure consignments do not contain arms, ammunition, or hazardous materials. This objective was met through subsequent inspection.
- Precedents Cited: The appellant relied on several judicial decisions, including:
- Commissioner of Customs vs. Moolchand Steels Pvt Ltd (Gujarat High Court)
- Palco Recycle Exchange Limited vs. CC, Mundra Kutch (CESTAT Ahmedabad)
- CC vs. Senor Metals Pvt Ltd (Gujarat High Court)
- Bhushan Steel Ltd vs. CC, Visakhapatnam (CESTAT Hyderabad)
- M/s Kamachi Steels Ltd vs. CC, Chennai (CESTAT Chennai)
Department’s Position
- Mandatory Pre-Condition: Customs authorities maintained that a valid PSIC from an agency authorized for the specific country is a mandatory pre-condition for import.
- Post-Shipment Inspection Not a Cure: They argued that post-shipment inspection in India cannot rectify the absence of a valid PSIC at the time of import.
- Knowledge of Lapse: The department asserted that the importer was aware of the agency’s lack of authorization for Guyana, justifying the penalties.
Tribunal’s Analysis and Decision
The CESTAT bench, after reviewing submissions and precedents, made several key observations:
- Nature of Lapse: The only lapse was that the inspection agency, though empanelled, was not authorized for Guyana. There was no evidence of prohibited or hazardous material in the consignment.
- Substantial Compliance: The tribunal emphasized that post-shipment inspection by a DGFT-approved agency confirmed the goods’ safety, amounting to substantial compliance with import policy.
- Precedent Support: The tribunal cited multiple decisions holding that non-compliance with procedural conditions may warrant 100% inspection but does not automatically justify confiscation or penalties if no prohibited goods are found.
- Setting Aside Penalties: Following the logic of earlier judgments, the tribunal set aside the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalties, allowing the appeal with consequential relief.
Implications for Importers
This ruling clarifies that:
- Minor procedural lapses in documentation, if rectified and if the goods are found compliant upon inspection, should not attract harsh penalties or confiscation.
- The primary objective of customs regulations is to prevent the import of hazardous or prohibited goods, not to penalize technical errors when the substantive requirements are met.
- Importers should ensure that inspection agencies are authorized for the country of export, but post-shipment compliance can provide relief in genuine cases.
Conclusion
The CESTAT Chandigarh’s decision in favor of Sona Casting Pvt Ltd reinforces the principle of substantial compliance and provides important guidance for both importers and customs authorities. It underscores the need for a balanced approach that safeguards national interests without unduly penalizing bona fide importers for technical lapses.
Connected Matter
Source: CESTAT Chandigarh
Handy Download:
Write to us at office@aadrikaalaw.com
Tel: +91-11-4999 2707 I +91-9999005379