9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2018 (3) TMI 874 - AT - CustomsQuantum of redemption fine and penalty - Valuation - Held that - the declared CIF value was ₹ 1,01,35,168/-.The CIF value was however revised to approximately ₹ 1.1 Crore.The redemption fine imposed works out to approximately 35% of the revised CIF value - .In the instant case, the appellant have not mentioned about any demurrage etc. paid in their appeal memorandum.Moreover, this is not the first time the appellant have been booked for this offence - he redemption fine is reduced from ₹ 38 lakhs to ₹ 30 lakhs - The penalty however is sustained on ₹ 4 lakhs - appeal allowed in part.
Issues:
Imposition of excessive redemption fine and penalty on M/s Bhikshu Margam for importing Rough Marble Blocks at declared value ranging from US $ 329.00 PMT CIF to US $ 332 PMT CIF. Analysis: The appeal filed by M/s Bhikshu Margam against the imposition of an excessive redemption fine and penalty was heard by the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI. The declared value of the imported Rough Marble Blocks ranged from US $ 329.00 PMT CIF to US $ 332 PMT CIF, which was later enhanced to US $ 335 PMT. Consequently, the goods were confiscated, and a redemption fine of &8377; 38 lakhs was imposed, along with a penalty of &8377; 4 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellant relied on a decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Bombay in a similar case where the redemption fine was fixed at 20% of CIF value and penalty at 5% of CIF value. The Tribunal noted that the declared CIF value was &8377; 1,01,35,168/-, which was revised to approximately &8377; 1.1 Crore. The redemption fine imposed amounted to around 35% of the revised CIF value. While the appellant cited the High Court's decision for reducing the redemption fine and penalty, it was observed that there were no specific guidelines provided in that case for determining the fine or penalty. Additionally, the appellant did not mention any demurrage paid in their appeal memorandum, and it was highlighted that this was not the first time the appellant had been booked for such an offense. Considering these factors, the redemption fine was reduced from &8377; 38 lakhs to &8377; 30 lakhs, while the penalty of &8377; 4 lakhs was upheld. The appeal was partly allowed based on the above terms. The decision was pronounced in court on 02.02.2018 by the members of the tribunal, namely SHRI RAMESH NAIR, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) and SHRI RAJU, MEMBER (TECHNICAL). The Assistant Commissioner (A.R.) represented the respondent, while no one appeared for the appellant during the proceedings. The learned Assistant Commissioner pointed out the appellant's history as a regular importer and a previous case booked in 2003, emphasizing the repeated nature of the offense. In conclusion, the tribunal considered the circumstances, past conduct, and lack of specific details provided by the appellant in determining the final redemption fine and penalty amounts.
|
