2018 (1) TMI 1452 - CGOVT - Customs

Re-export of confiscated Jewellery - no such request for re-export of the confiscated gold was made before Commissioner (Appeals) by the applicant - Held that - It is noticed from the order of Commissioner (Appeals) that no such request for re-export of the confiscated gold was made before him by the applicant. The applicant has also not provided any evidence to show that she had requested the Commissioner (Appeals) to allow her to re-export the confiscated gold. Therefore, no defect can be attributed to the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) on this account and the Government being only a revisionary authority in this case and not an appellate authority, it does not consider it proper at this juncture to entertain an additional prayer of the applicant which was never raised before Commissioner (Appeals). Reduction of redemption fine and penalty - Held that - Additional Commissioner of Customs has imposed redemption fine of ₹ 2,00,000/- only which is just 15% of value of confiscated goods. Whereas it is generally seen that redemption fine in such case is imposed at the rate of more than 30% of the value of the confiscated goods. Thus the redemption fine imposed by Additional Commissioner of Customs and upheld by the Commissioner (Appeals) is already very modest and reasonable. Therefore, the Government finds that no further reduction in redemption fine is warranted. Revision application allowed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Request for re-export or redemption of confiscated jewelry.
2. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty.

Analysis:
1. The revision application was filed seeking permission for re-export or redemption of confiscated jewelry. The applicant, a Thai national, requested for leniency during the personal hearing. However, it was noted that the applicant did not make any request for re-export of the confiscated gold before the Commissioner (Appeals). As the Government was a revisionary authority and not an appellate authority, it declined to entertain the additional prayer of the applicant, which was not raised before the Commissioner (Appeals). Therefore, the request for re-export was not granted due to lack of evidence and prior request.

2. Regarding the imposition of redemption fine and penalty, it was observed that the Additional Commissioner of Customs had imposed a redemption fine of &8377; 2,00,000, which was only 15% of the value of the confiscated goods. Typically, redemption fines in such cases are higher, exceeding 30% of the confiscated goods' value. The Government found the redemption fine to be modest and reasonable, thus no further reduction was warranted. However, the personal penalty of &8377; 2,00,000 was considered high, especially given the applicant's status as a Foreign national who had recently lost her husband. Therefore, the Government decided to reduce the personal penalty to &8377; 50,000, considering it a deserving case for a lenient view.

In conclusion, the revision application was allowed, and the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was modified to reduce the personal penalty while maintaining the redemption fine.