2011 (1) TMI 863 - AT - Customs

Reduction of redemption fine and penalty- Appellant has imported Old Used Incomplete Photocopier Incorporating Optical systems-Low Duty and have not misdeclared the description of goods - They have contested the assessable value determined by the Chartered Engineer as well as market enquiry conducted by the department, without taking them into confidence - Held that - appellants have cited Hon'ble Tribunal Final Order NO. 171/06-SM(BR) dated 03.07.06 in case of M/s. Supreme Enterprises, Delhi, wherein the Tribunal has upheld the Order-in-Appeal passed by the Commissioner (Appeals), central Excise, Chandigarh wherein redemption fine and penalty were substantially reduced - Also,held that the appellant have not misdeclared the description of goods and impugned order does not disclose mens rea of any high degree against the appellant and thus, penalty needs to be reduced - Decided in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Reduction of redemption fine and penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) - Misdeclaration of imported goods - Consideration of earlier Tribunal decisions in reducing fine and penalty - Appellant's appeal against reduction - Comparison with similar cases.

Analysis:
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT, DELHI, involved a common issue regarding the reduction of redemption fine and penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) in two appeals. The Revenue filed an appeal against the Commissioner's decision to reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 1.20 lakhs and penalty to Rs. 20,000 on the respondents. The imported goods were old and used incomplete photocopier machines with a declared value of Rs. 15,86,658, which was enhanced by the adjudicating authority to Rs. 25,92,000. The goods were confiscated with an option to redeem them by paying Rs. 7 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 7 lakhs.

In the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals), it was noted that the appellant had not misdeclared the description of goods and contested the assessable value without taking into confidence the Chartered Engineer's assessment and the department's market enquiry. The Commissioner (Appeals) considered previous cases and reduced the redemption fine and penalty based on the lack of misdeclaration and the appellant's reliance on relevant case laws and orders-in-appeals. The Tribunal also referenced a previous decision where the reduction of redemption fine and penalty was upheld.

The Appellate Tribunal, in its analysis, found no merit in the Revenue's appeal based on the reasoning adopted by the Commissioner (Appeals) and the previous Tribunal decisions. The Tribunal rejected the Revenue's appeal, affirming the reduction of the redemption fine and penalty. The judgment highlighted the importance of considering misdeclaration, previous decisions, and the specific circumstances of the case in determining the appropriate redemption fine and penalty.