2008 (4) TMI 310 - HC - Customs

Import of second-hand machinery in contravention of Exim Policy Reduction in Redemption fine and Penalty - Tribunal has followed its own earlier decision wherein the Tribunal has consistently imposed the redemption fine at 15 per cent and penalty under Section 112(a) at 5 per cent of the value of the goods, which factum has not been disputed by the counsel appearing for the Department. Held that no question of law arises, much less a substantial question for entertaining these appeals. Hence, the appeals are dismissed

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal under Section 130(1) of the Customs Act, 1962 against Final Order Nos. 677, 676, and 678 of 2007.
- Import of old used photocopiers without a specific license.
- Customs valuation rules and confiscation of goods.
- Reduction of redemption fine and penalty by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
- Interpretation of Sections 125 and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 regarding fines and penalties.
- Discretion of authorities in imposing fines and penalties.
- Application of precedent in determining redemption fine and penalty percentages.

Analysis:
1. The case involved an appeal by the Revenue against Final Orders related to the import of old used photocopiers without the required license. The goods were examined by Customs officers and a chartered engineer, leading to a show cause notice for confiscation, penalty imposition, and assessment based on the engineer's appraisal.
2. The Commissioner of Customs passed orders enhancing the goods' value, confiscating them, and imposing penalties. The importers appealed to the Tribunal, which confirmed the confiscation but reduced the redemption fine and penalty percentages, leading to the Revenue's appeal.
3. The Revenue questioned the Tribunal's reduction of fines and penalties, citing Circular No. 78/2003-Cus. and arguing for deterrent fines and penalties due to deliberate import violations. They contended that the Tribunal erred in reducing the fines and penalties without sufficient reasons.
4. The Court examined Sections 125 and 112 of the Customs Act, which outline the imposition of fines and penalties. It noted that the statutory provisions set maximum limits for fines and penalties but allow authorities discretion to impose amounts lower than the maximum prescribed.
5. The Court emphasized that the Tribunal's discretion in setting redemption fines and penalties should not be interfered with unless arbitrary or resulting in a miscarriage of justice. It highlighted the Tribunal's consistent application of 15% redemption fine and 5% penalty based on precedent, which was not disputed by the Revenue.
6. Consequently, the Court found no substantial question of law to entertain the appeals, leading to their dismissal without costs. The connected Miscellaneous Petitions were also dismissed.

This detailed analysis of the judgment highlights the issues, legal interpretations, and the Court's reasoning behind dismissing the appeals based on the application of statutory provisions and precedent.