2007 (1) TMI 12 - AT - Customs

mposition of fine and penalty Revenue contended that Commissioner of customs (Export) confiscating the vechile under section 111(d) of CA,1962 by exercising liberal approach against assessee After considering the fact reject the revenue contention

Summary

Issues:
1. Quantum of redemption fine not in accordance with Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. No penalty imposed despite confiscation of the vehicle under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Import of vehicle through Mumbai airport contravening notification specifying Nhava Sheva port.

Analysis:
1. The first issue raised in the appeal pertains to the quantum of redemption fine imposed on the confiscated vehicle, which the revenue argues is not in line with Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The redemption fine of Rs. 10,000 on a vehicle worth Rs. 40,58,795.16 is considered inadequate and not proportionate to the margin of profit of the imported goods. The Commissioner of Customs (Export) is criticized for adopting a liberal approach in determining the redemption fine without imposing any penalty, contrary to the norms set out in the Customs Act. The revenue contends that the jurisdiction should have been exercised as per Section 125 guidelines.

2. The second issue revolves around the absence of a penalty despite the confiscation of the vehicle under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The revenue questions the Commissioner's decision to refrain from imposing a penalty, arguing that such leniency is not justified given the circumstances of the case. The revenue asserts that the penalty should have been imposed in addition to the redemption fine, as per the provisions of the Customs Act.

3. The third issue concerns the import of the vehicle through Mumbai airport, which was deemed a contravention of the notification specifying Nhava Sheva port as the designated entry point. The respondent's counsel highlights that the import was carried out in accordance with the license granted under the EPCG Scheme, which indicated Mumbai Airport as the entry point. Despite the discrepancy in the designated port, it is argued that there was no intention to mislead or suppress facts by the respondent. The absence of misdeclaration or undervaluation of the imported goods further supports the argument for a lenient approach in imposing penalties.

In conclusion, the Tribunal finds no substantial question of law or recurring issue in the appeal. It is noted that there was no suppression of facts, misdeclaration, or undervaluation in the import process, leading to a lenient view in imposing the redemption fine without a penalty. The appeal is dismissed on grounds of valuation and merits, with the Tribunal declining to exercise discretion in admitting the appeal.