9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (8) TMI 1513 - AT - CustomsReduction in the quantum of redemption fine and penalty - case of Revenue is that respondent is a frequent importer of worn and used garments in violation of ITC Regulations - HELD THAT - The ld.Commissioner (Appeals) has ordered reduction of redemption fine and personal penalty on the basis of ratio laid down by the Three Member Bench of CESTAT, Delhi in the case of Omex International Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi 2015 (4) TMI 112 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB) . The Three Member Bench has taken the view that redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% of the value of the imported goods, would be appropriate in case of import violating Exim Policy Provisions - there are no reason to interfere with the findings of the ld.Commissioner (Appeals) on the basis of such decision. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues: Appeal against order of confiscation, enhancement of value, redemption fine, and personal penalty.
The judgment by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Kolkata involved an appeal concerning the confiscation of imported old and used worn clothing. The original adjudicating authority had enhanced the declared value of the goods, leading to confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962, along with a redemption fine and personal penalty. The First Appellate Authority upheld the confiscation and value enhancement but reduced the redemption fine and penalty. The Revenue challenged this reduction, arguing for an increase in the penalties due to the importer's repeated violations of Import Trade Control regulations. The Tribunal noted that the importer had consented to the value enhancement, and since there was no challenge to the confiscation, the focus was on the quantum of the penalties. The Tribunal referenced a decision by the CESTAT Delhi regarding appropriate redemption fine and penalty percentages for import violations, upholding the Commissioner (Appeals) decision based on that precedent. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the Revenue's appeal and disposing of the Stay Petition.
|
