9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (10) TMI 333 - AT - CustomsQuantum of redemption fine and penalty - Valuation of imported goods - enhancement in the declared value - violation of Import Trade Control restrictions - HELD THAT - The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has ordered reduction of redemption fine and personal penalty on the basis of ratio laid down by the Three Member Bench of CESTAT, Delhi in the case of M/S. OMEX INTERNATIONAL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI 2015 (4) TMI 112 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB) . The Three Member Bench has taken the view that redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% of the value of the imported goods, would be appropriate in case of import violating Exim Policy Provisions - there are no reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on the basis of such decision. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.
Issues: Delay in filing appeal, enhancement of value of imported goods, confiscation of goods, reduction of redemption fine and penalty, challenge to reduction of fine and penalty.
Delay in filing appeal: The Appellant filed a Miscellaneous Application to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The delay was condoned based on the reasons explained in the application, and the Miscellaneous Application was allowed. Enhancement of value of imported goods and confiscation: The respondent imported used and worn unmutilated and fumigated mix cloth, and the declared value was enhanced during original assessment. The original adjudicating authority confiscated the goods for violating Import Trade Control restrictions under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. Additionally, redemption fine under Section 125 and personal penalty under Section 112(a) were imposed. Reduction of redemption fine and penalty: The order of the original adjudicating authority was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) who upheld the confiscation and value enhancement but reduced the redemption fine and penalty to 10% and 5% respectively. The Revenue filed an appeal challenging the reduction, arguing for an increase in the fine and penalty as a deterrent for repeated violations. Judicial review: The Tribunal heard the arguments of the Revenue and noted that the enhancement of value was based on the importer's concurrence. While there was no challenge to the confiscation, the Revenue contested the reduction of redemption fine and penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals). The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Commissioner (Appeals) based on a precedent set by a Three Member Bench of CESTAT, Delhi, which established that a 10% redemption fine and 5% penalty were appropriate for violations of Exim Policy Provisions. Decision: The Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeal filed by the Revenue. The Stay Petition of the Revenue was disposed of accordingly.
|
