2008 (2) TMI 728 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Appellant challenging redemption fine imposed by adjudicating authority.
2. Dispute over the value of confiscated goods.
3. Whether the redemption fine is excessive.
4. Consideration of depreciation in the value of goods seized in 2003.
5. Determination of appropriate redemption fine.

Analysis:
1. The appeal was filed by the appellant against the de novo order of the Commissioner, where the majority decision set aside the absolute confiscation of Sandalwood oil and directed the adjudicating authority to quantify the redemption fine. The main issue was the fixation of the redemption fine.

2. The appellant contended that the redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs was excessive, arguing that the value of the goods seized in 2003 had depreciated and would not exceed Rs. 7 lakhs to Rs. 8 lakhs. The appellant's partner had presented this argument before the adjudicating authority, which was accepted by the Commissioner.

3. On the other hand, the JDR argued that despite the special license requirement for exporting Sandalwood oil and the mis-declaration of the value at the time of seizure, the redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs was justifiable as the value of the consignment was Rs. 25.0 lakhs. The JDR suggested remanding the matter back to the lower authorities.

4. The adjudicating authority had previously held that there was misdeclaration of the value of the consignment, which was not in dispute. The matter was remanded back to determine the quantum of the redemption fine, considering that the goods were seized in 2003 and the value might have depreciated over time.

5. After considering the submissions from both sides and perusing the records, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 5 lakhs to Rs. 50,000. The Tribunal acknowledged the possibility of depreciation in the value of the goods seized in 2003 and adjusted the redemption fine accordingly to meet the ends of justice.

In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeal by modifying the redemption fine, taking into account the depreciation in the value of the goods seized in 2003 and ensuring fairness in the adjudication process.