9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2008 (2) TMI 691 - AT - CustomsRedemption fine - Seizure - Adjudication - Show cause notice - Valuation - Countervailing duty - vitrified tiles
Issues:
1. Calculation of MRP for countervailing duty 2. Imposition of redemption fine on seized goods Analysis: Issue 1: Calculation of MRP for countervailing duty The appeal challenged the Adjudicating Authority's decision to calculate the countervailing duty based on an MRP of Rs. 800 per sq. mt. instead of the US Dollar 6.5 per sq. mt. as directed by the Tribunal's remand order. The appellant argued that the Commissioner erred in changing the basis for calculating MRP, as the original basis was not questioned by the Revenue. The Tribunal agreed with the appellant, emphasizing that the MRP should be computed based on the value of imported goods at US Dollar 6.5, as per the remand order. Therefore, the appeal was allowed on this point. Issue 2: Imposition of redemption fine on seized goods The redemption fine of Rs. 24,00,000 was imposed on the entire quantity of tiles held liable for confiscation, including those not seized, contrary to the Tribunal's remand order which specified the fine only for seized goods. The Tribunal clarified that redemption fine should only be imposed on seized goods held liable for confiscation, not on goods not available for confiscation. The Commissioner's error in imposing the fine on all tiles, including those not seized, was highlighted. The Tribunal set aside the redemption fine of Rs. 24,00,000 and directed the Original Authority to impose the fine only on the seized and provisionally released tiles. Proper reasoning and mathematical calculations were mandated for the new order. The Tribunal instructed the Original Authority to consider the appellant's submissions while determining the redemption fine. In conclusion, the Tribunal directed the computation of countervailing duty based on the correct MRP calculation and the imposition of redemption fine only on seized goods. The impugned order was set aside, and the matter was remanded to the Original Authority for further proceedings in line with the Tribunal's directions, with a deadline of two months for completion.
|
