2011 (8) TMI 185 - AT - Customs

Reduction of redemption fine and penalty - Import - Confiscation of the goods - the appellate authority has taken into account categorically that the margin of profit for low duty was Rs.200/- and for medium duty was for Rs.500/- per machine. He has also taken into account the fact that with the enhancement of the assessable value, the respondents had to pay higher customs duty alongwith payment of demurrage charges etc - While taking into account the transportation charges as also the recondition charges, he has arrived at the margin of profit - The said findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) do not stand rebutted by the Revenue by producing sufficient tangible evidence -Therefore, the reduction of redemption fine and penalty has been accepted by the Tribunal - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues involved:
1. Appeal against order enhancing value and confiscating goods
2. Challenge to reduction of redemption fine and penalty

Analysis:

Issue 1: Appeal against order enhancing value and confiscating goods
The case involved the import of old and used photocopiers without filing necessary documentation like an overseas chartered engineer's certificate and import license. The goods were valued by a chartered engineer at a higher amount than declared, leading to proceedings for enhancement of value and confiscation. The original authority ordered confiscation with an option to redeem on payment of a fine and penalty. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the enhancement but reduced the redemption fine and penalty after considering various factors, including the profit margin per machine, transportation charges, and reconditioning costs. The Commissioner's decision was based on the facts and circumstances of the case and a previous tribunal judgment. The Revenue challenged this order, but the Tribunal found no fault in the Commissioner's reasoning and rejected the appeal.

Issue 2: Challenge to reduction of redemption fine and penalty
The Commissioner (Appeals) considered the appellant's arguments regarding the market value of the goods, profit margins, and additional expenses incurred. The Commissioner relied on a tribunal judgment to justify the reduction of the redemption fine and penalty. The Tribunal noted that the Revenue failed to provide evidence to rebut the Commissioner's findings on profit margins and expenses. Citing a similar case where the reduction of fines was accepted, the Tribunal upheld the decision to reduce the redemption fine and penalty. The Tribunal found no flaws in the Commissioner's assessment and dismissed the Revenue's appeal.

In conclusion, the Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals) decision to reduce the redemption fine and penalty based on a thorough analysis of the facts and legal precedents. The judgment highlights the importance of considering all relevant factors in determining fines and penalties in customs cases.