9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (11) TMI 1401 - AT - CustomsConfiscation of goods - Proper authorization for import of rough marble blocks not taken - Contravention of Section 3 of Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992 read with Section 11(2) (V) of Custom Act, 1962 - Held that - there are some contrary judgments, also as relied upon by the Revenue wherein this Tribunal without reducing the penalty upheld the fine and penalty confirmed by the lower authority. However we observed that the facts of the import of rough marble blocks are more or less identical and in the case of Stoneman Marble Industries, Hon ble Supreme Court upheld the order of the Tribunal wherein redemption fine was fixed at 20% and penalty at 5% of CIF value. As regard contrary judgments of this Tribunal, in none of the case, judgment of Stoneman Marble Industries was considered. Therefore following judicial discipline, the ratio of the Apex Court judgment in case of Stoneman Marble Industries shall prevail over the other Tribunal judgments. Therefore following the ratio of the Stoneman Marble Industries case we reduce redemption fine of ₹ 16 Lakhs to 20% of CIF value and penalty of ₹ 6 lakhs is reduced 5% of the CIF value. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
Issues:
1. Confiscation of rough marble blocks for unauthorized importation. 2. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty under the Custom Act, 1962. 3. Application of previous judgments on reduction of redemption fine and penalty. Issue 1: Confiscation of rough marble blocks for unauthorized importation The appeal was against an Order-in-Original where the Commissioner of Customs confiscated 305 MTs and 75.34 MTs of Rough Marble Blocks valued at Rs. 56,71,298/- due to unauthorized importation under Section 111(d) of the Custom Act, 1962. The appellant imported the blocks without the required specific import license, leading to a violation of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulations) Act, 1992. The declared value in the Bill of Entry was below the contemporaneous import value, further supporting the confiscation of the goods and imposition of a redemption fine of Rs. 18,00,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 6,00,000/- under relevant sections of the Custom Act, 1962. Issue 2: Imposition of redemption fine and penalty under the Custom Act, 1962 The appellant argued that there was no intention to evade custom duty and that the enhancement of value was insignificant without proper evidence. Referring to a previous judgment, the appellant requested a reduction in the redemption fine and penalty based on the consistent view taken by the Tribunal in similar cases. The appellant sought a reduction to 20% of the CIF value for redemption fine and 5% of CIF value for the penalty. The Revenue, on the other hand, supported the findings of the impugned order and cited various judgments where redemption fine and penalty were maintained in similar cases. Issue 3: Application of previous judgments on reduction of redemption fine and penalty After considering submissions from both sides and reviewing the record, the Tribunal noted the appellant's plea for reduction based on a specific judgment. The Tribunal acknowledged contrary judgments where penalties were upheld without reduction. However, the Tribunal found that the facts of the case were similar to the judgment cited by the appellant. Following judicial discipline, the Tribunal decided to apply the ratio of the Supreme Court judgment in the specific case, reducing the redemption fine to 20% of CIF value and the penalty to 5% of the CIF value. The appeal was partly allowed based on this decision.
|
