2013 (9) TMI 284 - AT - Customs

Adding additional grounds - Redemption fine Penalty - The quantum of redemption fine depended on the facts and circumstances of the case and was subject to the statutory limit prescribed u/s 125 according to which the same cannot exceed the market price Held that - The comparison of the declared value to the value ascertained by the chartered engineer clearly gives an indication of profit margins - 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 - no justification to interfere with the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) decided in favor of revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Additional grounds and amendment of prayer sought by appellant parties.
2. Reduction of redemption fines and penalties sustained by Commissioner (Appeals).
3. Enhancement of redemption fines and penalties sought by the department.
4. Jurisdiction of original authority in passing orders.
5. Validity of redemption fines and penalties imposed.
6. Applicability of Foreign Trade Policy.
7. Discretion in determining 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 the appellant parties were against the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) seeking reduction of redemption fines and penalties. The department, on the other hand, filed appeals seeking enhancement of redemption fines and penalties imposed by the original authorities. All these appeals were dealt with together due to similar facts and legal points.

3. The assesses imported 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. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the confiscation and duty liability but reduced fines and penalties, leading to appeals by both parties.

4. The issue of jurisdiction of the original authority was raised by the importers before the Tribunal for the first time. However, the Tribunal found that the importers had submitted to the jurisdiction of the authorities below, making it invalid to challenge jurisdiction at this stage.

5. Arguments were presented regarding the arbitrary imposition of redemption fines and penalties, exceeding benchmark rates, and the applicability of the Foreign Trade Policy. The Tribunal considered these arguments but found no grounds to interfere with the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals).

6. The Tribunal emphasized the discretion in determining redemption fines and penalties, noting that the amounts determined were reasonable and based on valuation by chartered engineers. The Commissioner (Appeals) had considered all relevant facts and used discretion in reducing fines and penalties, which were upheld as reasonable.

7. Ultimately, the appeals by both parties and the department were rejected, and the miscellaneous applications were disposed of accordingly. The Tribunal found no justification to interfere with the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) regarding redemption fines and penalties.