9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Import of old and used second hand diesel engine as a gift, penalty and fine imposed, reduction of penalty and fine by Collector (Appeals), plea of non-involvement of foreign exchange, procedural requirements for import of gifts, imposition of redemption fine and penalty, appeal against penalty and fine. Detailed Analysis: 1. Import of Old and Used Diesel Engine as a Gift: The appellant received a gift of an old and used second hand diesel engine from his sons settled abroad. The appellant claimed that he made inquiries and was informed that no import license was required due to no foreign exchange involvement. However, the import was found liable for confiscation under Section 111D of the Customs Act as no custom clearance permit was produced, which was required for the import of second hand goods. 2. Reduction of Penalty and Fine by Collector (Appeals): The Collector (Appeals) reduced the penalty and fine imposed by the Assistant Collector, considering the plea that the import was not for commercial purpose and did not involve foreign exchange. The penalty was reduced to Rs. 7,000/- and the redemption fine to Rs. 14,000/- from the original amounts of Rs. 13,000/- and Rs. 48,000/- respectively, showing leniency due to lack of circumstances justifying the heavy amounts. 3. Procedural Requirements for Import of Gifts: The Collector (Appeals) acknowledged that the import was a bona fide gift for personal use without foreign exchange involvement. However, it was noted that the procedural requirement of obtaining a customs clearance permit for importing the gift without facing penalty requirements under import trade control regulations was not fulfilled. 4. Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalty: The Tribunal held that penal consequences should only be invoked in case of mala fide transactions. Since the import was considered bona fide, the penalty was set aside. The redemption fine of 100% was found to be slightly more than the value of the imports, and the absence of evidence regarding the market price of the goods led to the fine being overturned. The Tribunal also found the imposition of a 100% fine unjustified given the circumstances, thus setting aside both the fine and penalty. 5. Conclusion: The Tribunal allowed the appeal, setting aside the penalty and redemption fines imposed. Considering the pending nature of the case since 1992, the Tribunal decided against remanding the matter for re-adjudication on the fine, as no purpose would be served. The appeal was allowed with consequential relief, overturning the penalty and fines imposed by the lower authorities.
|
