2009 (4) TMI 29 - HC - Customs

Import of photocopier machine confiscation reduction in redemption fine and penalty - Commissioner recorded the finding that the dealer had imported the goods for the first time and did not mis-declare the description of the goods. Further a finding was recorded that there was no evidence highlighting the presence of intention to evade duty - order passed by the Commissioner (A) shows that there could have been bona fide mistake on the part of the dealer in as much as second hand photo copying machines were not complete and some of the parts although minor one were missing without which the machine could not have worked commissioner is justified in reducing the redemption fine and penalty - the exercise of discretion is not without any rationale basis and has been rightly upheld by the Tribunal no question of law arise appeal of revenue dismissed

Summary

Issues:
Import of incomplete photocopier machines incorporating optical systems - Low duty and their parts GP Toner, Paper Deck Set, Drum units without required license/permission under Foreign Trade Policy (2004-09). Confiscation, redemption fine, and personal penalty imposed under Customs Act, 1962. Reduction of redemption fine and personal penalty by Commissioner (A) challenged before Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to three appeals (CUSAP Nos. 3, 5, and 6 of 2009) with a common issue of importation of incomplete photocopier machines and their parts without the necessary license/permission under the Foreign Trade Policy. The dealer-respondent imported the goods, which were found to have the essential character of a photocopier machine despite missing parts. The Adjudicating Authority ordered confiscation under section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, along with a redemption fine and a personal penalty. On appeal, the Commissioner (A) reduced the redemption fine and personal penalty considering it was the dealer's first import and there was no evidence of intention to evade duty.

The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (A)'s decision, finding the exercise of discretion not to be perverse. The High Court, upon review, observed that the Commissioner (A) had considered the facts and circumstances of the case while reducing the penalties. The Court noted that there could have been a genuine mistake on the dealer's part regarding the incomplete nature of the imported machines. It concluded that the exercise of discretion was rational and upheld by the Tribunal, dismissing the appeals.

The Court found no substantive question of law raised in the appeals warranting admission. Therefore, the appeals were deemed without merit and dismissed. The judgment highlights the importance of considering the circumstances and rationale behind decisions involving penalties under customs laws, emphasizing the need for a valid legal basis for challenging such decisions.