2016 (5) TMI 915 - AT - Customs

Restriction on import - Import of Random Polished Marble Slabs of CIF value less than US Dollar 60 per SQM - freely not importable as per Notification No. 65(RE-2010)/2009-14 dated 04.08.2011 - Held that - the good were of CIF value less than US 60 per SQM even on the date of shipment and remained in violation of Exim Policy on the date of their imports as the CIF value was admittedly less than US 60 per SQM. Consequently, the impugned goods became liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962. However, it is also evident that in the above scenario, there is no whiff of any deliberate misrepresentation and the goods were in violation of Exim Policy only marginally as the CIF value worked out to be only marginally less than US 60 per SQM and that too due to monthly exchange rate changes notified vide Customs Notification after the appellant obtained quotation for the goods on 10.09.2011. Therefore, in all fairness and in the interest of justice, considerable leniency is called for in adjudging the redemption fine and penalty. Impugned order is upheld except that the redemption fine and penalty are reduced to ₹ 1,50,000/- and ₹ 50,000/- respectively - Decided partly in favour of appellant

Summary

Issues:
Import of marble slabs below permitted CIF value, violation of Exim Policy, confiscation, redemption fine, penalty reduction.

Analysis:
The appeal was filed against an order-in-appeal that reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant for importing marble slabs below the permitted CIF value. The appellant imported the slabs with an assessable value of ?25,27,186.90, falling below the US Dollar 60 per SQM threshold specified in a relevant notification. The goods were confiscated, and fines were imposed. The appellant argued that at the time of shipment, the CIF value was above the threshold due to exchange rate fluctuations, but upon arrival, it marginally fell below. The exchange rate discrepancy was highlighted as a key point of contention.

The Tribunal considered both parties' arguments and examined the timeline of events. Despite the quotation being compliant on the date of issuance, the CIF value fell below the threshold even at the time of shipment, violating the Exim Policy. The Tribunal noted that the appellant was not obligated to import the goods in violation of the policy. While the goods were marginally non-compliant, there was no evidence of deliberate misrepresentation. Due to monthly exchange rate fluctuations post-quotation, the CIF value decreased slightly. Consequently, the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Tribunal acknowledged the lack of intentional wrongdoing and the marginal violation nature, leading to a call for leniency in determining the redemption fine and penalty.

In the final decision, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order but reduced the redemption fine and penalty to ?1,50,000 and ?50,000, respectively. The appeal was partly allowed solely for the reduction in fines and penalties. The judgment emphasized fairness and justice in considering the circumstances surrounding the violation, leading to a more lenient penalty imposition.