2013 (8) TMI 397 - AT - Customs

Reduction in amount of fine and penalty - the goods were confiscated u/s 111 (d) for violation of the import control restriction - appellant paid the redemption fine, penalty and customs duty and cleared the good - appeal filed being aggrieved that the redemption fine and penalty imposed is very high and needs to be set aside Held that - in case of such multiple contraventions the redemption fine imposed was only about 17% and this cannot be considered as excessive - penalty imposed was about 6% and therefore both these should not be interfered with appeal decided against the assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Violation of import control restrictions, underdeclaration of product value, imposition of redemption fine and penalty.

Analysis:
The appellant imported goods without a valid certificate from the Directorate of Plant Protection, Quarantine, and Storage, Faridabad, as required by the Insecticide Act, 1968. The goods lacked essential labeling indicating the manufacturer or country of origin, raising concerns about their safety and compliance with regulations. Additionally, the import was made through Tuticorin Customs House, a port not specified for such imports under the Insecticides Rules, 1971, further violating import control restrictions.

The revenue authorities determined that the declared value of one of the products, Ethephon, was underdeclared and increased it significantly. The appellant agreed to the reassessed value to expedite clearance due to demurrage costs but contested the high redemption fine and penalty imposed. The appellant argued that the increased value was based on USA-manufactured goods, while they imported from China, justifying the underdeclaration. However, the exact demurrage amount incurred was not disclosed, impacting the assessment of the fine and penalty.

The revenue department contended that the appellant's acceptance of the reassessed value precluded challenging the fine and penalty. They highlighted multiple contraventions by the appellant, including importing insecticides without essential labels and licenses, and using an unauthorized port for entry. The revenue department emphasized the potential risks to flora and fauna due to non-compliance with labeling and import regulations.

After considering both parties' arguments, the tribunal upheld the adjudication order, citing the appellant's multiple contraventions and the proportionate nature of the fine and penalty imposed. The tribunal found no grounds to interfere with the decision, affirming the redemption fine and penalty. The judgment was pronounced on 09-05-2013, concluding the appeal process.