2009 (1) TMI 705 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported consignment of Rough Marble Blocks of Iranian Origin.
2. Requirement of Specific Import Licence (SIL) and redemption fine.
3. Quantum of redemption fine and penalty imposed by the Commissioner.
4. Market price determination for calculating margin of profit.
5. Justifiability of the lower redemption fine imposed.

Analysis:

1. The Commissioner of Customs confiscated the imported consignment of Rough Marble Blocks of Iranian Origin due to the declared price not aligning with the floor price of US$ 300, necessitating a Specific Import Licence (SIL) which the appellants failed to produce. The Commissioner provided an option to redeem the goods upon payment of a redemption fine and imposed a penalty. The issue of confiscation was based on the technical ground of non-production of SIL.

2. The Revenue appealed against the quantum of redemption fine and penalty imposed by the Commissioner. The Revenue argued that the margin of profit was higher, justifying a lower redemption fine. However, the Tribunal found discrepancies in the market price used by the Revenue for calculating the margin of profit, noting that the costing data was not part of the adjudication proceedings and lacked specificity regarding the quality and origin of the marble blocks.

3. The Tribunal observed that the Commissioner's decision to fix a lower redemption fine was justified, considering the substantial reduction in the premium of SIL. The Revenue failed to rebut this finding, leading the Tribunal to reject the appeals filed by the Revenue, as there was no valid reason to interfere with the impugned orders.

4. The Tribunal emphasized that the market price of marble blocks varies based on quality and origin, highlighting the lack of evidence supporting the Revenue's chosen market price for determining the margin of profit. The absence of specific data related to the quality and origin of the marble blocks undermined the Revenue's argument for a higher redemption fine.

5. In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the lack of justification for interfering with the impugned orders. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the technical grounds of non-production of SIL, the adequacy of the redemption fine imposed, and the insufficiency of evidence supporting the Revenue's arguments regarding the margin of profit and market price determination.