2009 (2) TMI 566 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Apparent error in CESTAT order regarding redemption fine imposition.
2. Non-consideration of Supreme Court judgment by CESTAT.
3. Application of Supreme Court judgment to the present case.
4. Timing of ROM application filing by the Commissioner.

Analysis:

Issue 1: Apparent error in CESTAT order regarding redemption fine imposition
The Revenue filed a ROM application against the CESTAT Order, challenging the finding that redemption fine is not imposable when goods are not available for confiscation. The Revenue argued that the Supreme Court precedent in the Weston Components case mandates redemption fine even for goods released on bond. However, the Tribunal found no apparent error in its order as the Supreme Court judgment was not cited or relied upon by the Revenue during the appeal process. The Tribunal concluded that it had considered the available evidence and no rectification was warranted.

Issue 2: Non-consideration of Supreme Court judgment by CESTAT
Referring to the Hindustan Lever case, the Revenue contended that failure to consider a binding precedent like the Weston Components judgment constitutes an error apparent on record. The Tribunal acknowledged the importance of Supreme Court decisions but noted that the Weston Components judgment was not cited by the Revenue during appeal or arguments. Therefore, the Tribunal found no error in its decision-making process.

Issue 3: Application of Supreme Court judgment to the present case
The Tribunal clarified that the Weston Components judgment, which allows for redemption fine post-release on bond, does not apply to the current scenario. In this case, diamonds were not released on bond and were physically unavailable for confiscation. The Deputy Commissioner confirmed that no bond was taken for these goods. Thus, the facts of the present case are distinct from those in the Weston Components case, making the application of the Supreme Court ruling irrelevant.

Issue 4: Timing of ROM application filing by the Commissioner
The Tribunal noted that the Commissioner had accepted the CESTAT order before filing the ROM application. Questioning the timing of the application, the Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's filing and dismissed the ROM application. The Tribunal highlighted the discrepancy between accepting the order and later challenging it through the ROM application.

In conclusion, the Tribunal dismissed the ROM application, emphasizing the lack of merit in the Revenue's arguments and the inapplicability of the Supreme Court judgment to the facts of the case.