2011 (8) TMI 777 - AT - Customs

Bill of entry for 114 Old and Used Complete Photocopier - No Chartered Engineer Certificate - Revenue contended residual life more than 5 years - objected assessable value, confiscated the goods and imposed redemption fine 8.75Lakh & penalty 70,000 as per Sec 125 - Commissioner (Appeals) reduced fine to Rs.2.50 lakhs and penalty to Rs.50000 - Revenue aggrieved by the order of commissioner is in appeal before us - Held That - Sec 115 deals with confiscation and doesnot mandate redemption fine market price of the goods less duty payable. Commissioner (Appeals) 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 on 141 machines would be around 70,000/-. Even if the entire margin of profit is wiped out the redemption fine of Rs.2.50 lakhs confirmed by the Commissioner (Appeals) is much on the higher side.Similarly, the penalty reduction to Rs.50,000/- cannot be faulted upon inasmuch as there was no mis-declaration of description of the goods.

Summary

Issues:
1. Reduction of redemption fine and penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals).
2. Interpretation of Section 115(2) of the Act regarding the imposition of redemption fine.
3. Consideration of various factors in determining redemption fine and penalty.

Detailed Analysis:
1. The main issue in this case revolves around the reduction of the redemption fine and penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals) in response to an appeal filed by the Revenue. The case involved the import of old and used photocopier machines without the required documentation, leading to an enhanced assessable value and subsequent confiscation of the goods with a redemption fine of Rs. 8.75 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 8.75 lakhs imposed by the original adjudicating authority. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 2.50 lakhs and the penalty to Rs. 5000, citing various expenses incurred by the respondent and a nominal margin of profit per machine. The Revenue appealed against this reduction, arguing that the original redemption fine should have been maintained.

2. The second issue pertains to the interpretation of Section 115(2) of the Act concerning the imposition of redemption fine. The Revenue contended that the redemption fine should not be less than the market price of the confiscated goods minus the duty payable. However, the Tribunal clarified that Section 115 only sets a maximum limit for the redemption fine based on the market price of the goods, and other factors must be considered in determining the actual amount of the fine. The Commissioner (Appeals) had already considered the expenses incurred by the respondent and the minimal profit margin per machine in arriving at the reduced redemption fine of Rs. 2.50 lakhs.

3. The final issue addressed the consideration of various factors in determining the redemption fine and penalty. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)' decision, stating that the reduced redemption fine and penalty were justified based on the absence of misdeclaration of goods, the loaded value leading to higher duty payment, and the nominal profit margin per machine. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding the quantum of the redemption fine and penalty, ultimately rejecting the Revenue's appeal.