2013 (9) TMI 248 - AT - Customs

Redemption fine Penalty - assesses imported used multi-functional copiers along with accessories and classified the same under 84433100 Held that - It cannot be said that the redemption fines had been imposed without any basis or without conducting any enquiry - Commissioner (Appeals) had taken all relevant facts into account and used his discretion to reduce the redemption fines and penalties - The quantum of redemption fines and penalties sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals) cannot be considered either to be excessive or on the lower side - The amounts of fines and penalties determined were reasonable - there was no justification to interfere with the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals). The redemption fine imposed by the Tribunal cannot be taken as truly binding precedents and the same may be taken at the most only as guidelines - If a restricted import takes place repeatedly the hands of the adjudicating authority cannot be tied by prescribing a lower limit than the statutory limits prescribed u/s125 - Such a prescription will lead to flooding of prohibited and restricted items into the market which cannot be permitted the discretion can be exercised by the original authority or Commissioner (Appeals) or by the Tribunal arbitrarily or mechanically.

Issues:
1. Additional grounds and amendment of prayer sought by the appellant-parties.
2. Reduction of redemption fine and penalty sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Confiscation of consignments and imposition of redemption fines and penalties.
4. Jurisdictional challenge regarding the orders passed by the original authority.
5. Reduction in redemption fines and penalties imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals).
6. Applicability of Foreign Trade Policy on photocopier machines.
7. Validity of the orders of confiscation and penalties upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals).
8. Consideration of multi-functional photocopiers and imposition of redemption fines and penalties.

Analysis:

1. The appellant-parties filed miscellaneous applications seeking to file additional grounds and amend the prayer to set aside redemption fines and penalties. The applications were allowed after hearing both sides.

2. The appeals by M/s. Copier Marketing Ltd. and M/s. Copier Marketing Corporation sought reduction of redemption fines and penalties sustained by the Commissioner (Appeals). The department also filed appeals seeking enhancement of redemption fines and penalties imposed by the original authorities. These appeals were dealt with collectively due to similar facts and legal points.

3. The assesses imported used multi-functional copiers and accessories, accepted the classification and enhanced value, and paid duty. The original authority confiscated the consignments and allowed redemption on payment of fines and penalties, which were reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. The jurisdictional challenge was raised by the importers, contending that the goods did not require a license for clearance. However, the Tribunal found the challenge weak as the importers had submitted to the jurisdiction of the authorities below.

5. The importers argued for a reduction in redemption fines and penalties, citing various Tribunal decisions. The Commissioner (Appeals) had already considered relevant facts and used discretion to reduce the fines and penalties, which were deemed reasonable.

6. The importers claimed that photocopier machines were restricted only from a specific date, not earlier. However, the Tribunal found no reliable evidence to support this claim in the present case.

7. The orders of confiscation and penalties upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) were deemed valid as the imported goods were subject to confiscation for lacking the requisite licenses under the exim policy.

8. The Tribunal considered the imposition of redemption fines and penalties, emphasizing that the amounts should not exceed the statutory limits and should be based on valuation by approved engineers. The Commissioner (Appeals) had appropriately considered all relevant factors in determining the fines and penalties.

In conclusion, the appeals by the parties and the department were rejected, and the miscellaneous applications were disposed of. The Tribunal found no justification to interfere with the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding redemption fines and penalties, considering them reasonable based on the circumstances of the case.

← Previous Next →