2016 (8) TMI 1072 - AT - Customs

Enhancement of the redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority - Held that - We find that in all the cases, the fact is that the respondents have imported Marble Blocks without obtaining Special Import Licence and there is also mis-declaration of the value. We observe from the impugned order that though the redemption fine was not to the extent of margin but the penalty was substantially enhanced. If both penalty and redemption fine are taken together it is more or less equal to the margin therefore principle that the margin should be wiped out stand complied with. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere in the imposition of penalty and fine ordered by the adjudicating authority. Moreover, this Tribunal in the case of Stonemann Marble Industries Vs. Commissioner (2002 (1) TMI 1254 - CEGAT, MUMBAI) on the identical case the redemption fine and penalty was reduced to 20% and 5% of the CIF value respectively. This decision of the Tribunal was upheld by the Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Import) Vs. Stonemann Marble Industries (2011 (1) TMI 15 - SUPREME COURT OF INDIA ). In view of above position, firstly we find that taking into consideration the total amount of penalty and redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority which is equal to the margin, no further enhancement is required. We, therefore upheld the impugned orders and dismiss the appeals filed by the Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
- Enhancement of redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority.

Analysis:
1. Common Issue of Redemption Fine Enhancement:
- The Revenue sought enhancement of the redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority in the appeals related to import of Marble without obtaining the license and mis-declaration.

2. Arguments by Revenue and Lack of Appearance by Appellants:
- Shri Chatru Singh and Shri M.K. Mall for the Revenue argued that the redemption fine should be equal to the margin of profit, which was lower than imposed. However, no one appeared on behalf of the appellants.

3. Tribunal's Decision and Precedents:
- After considering the submissions and records, the Tribunal noted the import of Marble Blocks without the required license and mis-declaration of value.
- The Tribunal observed that though the redemption fine was not equal to the margin, the penalty was significantly increased, making the total penalty and fine approximately equal to the margin.
- Referring to a previous case, the Tribunal mentioned that the redemption fine and penalty were reduced to 20% and 5% of the CIF value, respectively, which was upheld by the Supreme Court.

4. Final Decision and Dismissal of Appeals:
- The Tribunal concluded that no further enhancement was necessary as the total penalty and redemption fine equaled the margin.
- Citing the Supreme Court's judgment and the previous case, the Tribunal upheld the impugned orders and dismissed the appeals filed by the Revenue.

5. Conclusion:
- The judgment, delivered on 28/07/2016 by Shri Ramesh Nair and Shri Raju, maintained the penalty and redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority, emphasizing compliance with the margin requirement and the precedent set by the Supreme Court in a similar case.