2004 (7) TMI 400 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of goods under Sections 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act.
2. Imposition of redemption fine and penalties.
3. Request for reduction in redemption fine and penalties.
4. Payment of duty and demurrage by the appellants.
5. Application of legal precedent in Asia Pacific Marbles P. Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai.

Confiscation of Goods under Sections 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act:
The appellants imported a second-hand printing machine without a proper license, resulting in the confiscation of the goods under Sections 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act. Despite paying duty on the assessed value and demurrage of approximately Rs. 3.55 lakhs, the goods were confiscated due to improper importation.

Imposition of Redemption Fine and Penalties:
The impugned order imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 12,00,000/- under Section 125 of the Customs Act, along with penalties on the appellants. The appellants did not contest the merits of the order but sought a reduction in the redemption fine and penalties based on the duty payment and demurrage already made.

Request for Reduction in Redemption Fine and Penalties:
The appellants, through their Counsel, requested a reduction in the redemption fine and penalties, arguing that the duty on the imported machine had been paid in full, and demurrage charges had also been settled. The Counsel sought a decrease in the fines and penalties, which was opposed by the JDR representing the Respondent.

Payment of Duty and Demurrage by the Appellants:
The appellants had paid the duty on the assessed value of the imported machine and cleared demurrage charges amounting to Rs. 3.55 lakhs. These payments were highlighted as factors supporting the request for a reduction in the redemption fine and penalties.

Application of Legal Precedent - Asia Pacific Marbles P. Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai:
The judgment referred to the case of Asia Pacific Marbles P. Ltd. v. CC, Mumbai, where redemption fines and penalties were reduced to 5% and 20% of the CIF value of seized goods. Citing this precedent and considering the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal granted the requested reduction. The redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 3 lakhs, and penalties on the appellant-company and Director were decreased to Rs. 1 lakh and Rs. 50,000 respectively. The impugned order was upheld with the mentioned modifications, and if the appellants had overpaid, they were entitled to a refund within 3 months.

This detailed analysis of the judgment addresses the issues of confiscation of goods, imposition of fines and penalties, the request for reduction, payment made by the appellants, and the application of legal precedent, providing a comprehensive understanding of the Tribunal's decision.