2014 (9) TMI 442 - HC - Customs

Import of old and used digital multifunction printing machines - confiscation - Section 112 - Commissioner (appeals) reduced the quantum of redemption fine and penalty - tribunal refused to enhance the quantum of redemption fine and penalty - Held that - Tribunal in the present case has relied upon the various decisions including that of the decision of this Court in the case of Sai Copiers 2008 (1) TMI 402 - HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS only to come to a prima facie conclusion that the case does not deserve enhancement of redemption fine and penalty. With regard to the calculation of margin of profit, taking into consideration the various parameters required under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and in the absence of any market enquiry conducted by the Department, the Tribunal came to the conclusion that the value has been fixed by the Chartered Engineer s at the behest of the Department and therefore, no fault could be attributed to the assessee. The maximum that could be levied is only prescribed. There is no statutory prescription that the penalty should not be reduced by the appellate authority. - Decided against the revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Challenging reduction of redemption fine and penalty for import of restricted goods without license.

Analysis:
The Revenue filed Civil Miscellaneous Appeals against the Tribunal's order reducing the redemption fine and penalty for the import of old and used digital multifunction printing machines/photocopiers without the required license. The importers admitted to not having the necessary import license and requested adjudication. Orders-in-original were issued without show cause notices, leading to confiscation of goods, later allowed redemption on payment of fines and penalties reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Revenue contested the reduction before the CESTAT, which dismissed the appeals, upholding the Commissioner's decision.

The Revenue raised substantial questions of law, disputing the Tribunal's findings on the classification of digital multifunction photocopiers/printers, import restrictions on old and used goods, order of confiscation, importer's status as a regular offender, and compliance with Board's circular on levying fines and penalties. The Tribunal's reliance on previous decisions and the distinction between photocopiers and digital multifunctional machines formed the basis of its judgment. The Tribunal concluded that the case did not warrant an increase in redemption fine and penalty, especially since no appeal was made against the confiscation orders.

The Tribunal's decision was based on the interpretation of relevant laws, market value considerations, and discretionary powers vested in adjudicating authorities. It cited precedents and statutory provisions to support its stance on the imposition and reduction of fines and penalties. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to established principles in determining fines and penalties, especially in cases involving restricted goods and import violations.

Ultimately, the High Court dismissed the Civil Miscellaneous Appeals, finding no substantial questions of law for consideration. The Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, emphasizing the lack of justification for enhancing fines and penalties. The judgment highlighted the importance of consistent application of legal principles in customs matters and the need for adherence to statutory provisions and precedents in determining fines and penalties for import violations.