2011 (8) TMI 955 - AT - Customs

Quantum of redemption fine and penalty - Section 115 deals with confiscation of conveyance and only lays down the maximum limit for imposing the redemption fine as the market price of goods sought to be smuggled and does not mandate the fixing of redemption fine equivalent to the market price of the goods less duty payable - For fixing the redemption fine, various factors have to be taken into consideration-The Commissioner (Appeals) have already, after taking into account various expenses incurred by the respondent arrived at a finding of nominal margin of profit of Rs.500/- per machine - As such, the profit earned by the respondent was on the lower side and even if the entire margin of profit is wiped out the redemption fines confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) are much on the higher side. Similarly, the penalty reduction to Rs.20,000/- cannot be faulted upon inasmuch as there was no mis-declaration of description of the goods - Decieded in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
1. Disposal of appeals by the Revenue due to the identical issue of lowering redemption fine and penalty by Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Assessment of assessable value of imported goods without necessary documentation and license.
3. Initiation of proceedings leading to an order enhancing assessable value, confiscation, and imposition of fines and penalties.
4. Reduction of redemption fine and penalty by Commissioner (Appeals) based on various factors.
5. Appeal by Revenue against the reduction of fine and penalty.
6. Interpretation of Section 115 regarding redemption fine and penalty imposition.
7. Justification of Commissioner (Appeals) decision on redemption fine and penalty reduction.

Analysis:
1. The appeals filed by the Revenue were disposed of due to the common issue of dissatisfaction with the reduction of redemption fine and penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals). Both parties were represented during the proceedings.

2. The imported goods, Old and Used Complete Photocopier Incorporating Optical Systems, were declared with an assessable value, but lacked necessary documentation like the overseas Chartered Engineer certificate and the required license from the DGFT for second-hand photocopier machines.

3. Proceedings were initiated against the respondent for not providing essential documentation, leading to an order by the adjudicating authority enhancing the assessable value, confiscating the goods, and imposing fines and penalties on the importers.

4. The Commissioner (Appeals) rejected the appeal on merits but reduced the redemption fine and penalty based on various factors such as market value, expenses incurred by the importers, and lack of misdeclaration of goods.

5. The Revenue appealed against the reduction of fine and penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals, arguing that the fines imposed were justified based on the market price of the goods and duty chargeable.

6. The Tribunal analyzed Section 115, which sets the maximum limit for redemption fine imposition, emphasizing that various factors must be considered in determining the fine, not just the market price less duty chargeable.

7. The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) on the reduction of redemption fine and penalty, considering the nominal profit margin of the importers and the absence of misdeclaration of goods, ultimately rejecting the Revenue's appeals.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment comprehensively, outlining the proceedings, decisions, and interpretations made by the Tribunal.