2020 (5) TMI 155 - AT - Customs

Quantum of redemption fine and penalty - enhancement of value of imported goods - old and used worn clothing - HELD THAT - On perusal of the impugned order, we note 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. The impugned order is upheld and the appeals filed by the Revenue are rejected - Decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
1. Confiscation of imported goods for violation of Import Trade Control restrictions.
2. Enhancement of value of imported goods.
3. Reduction of redemption fine and personal penalty.
4. Challenge to the reduction of redemption fine and personal penalty.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the import of old and used worn clothing, with the declared value of the goods being enhanced during original assessment. The original adjudicating authority confiscated the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, and imposed a redemption fine under Section 125 and a personal penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act.

2. The order was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals), who upheld the confiscation and value enhancement but reduced the redemption fine and penalty. The Revenue filed an appeal seeking a review of the reduced redemption fine and personal penalty, arguing that a higher penalty would deter frequent violators of Import Trade Control regulations.

3. The Appellate Tribunal observed that the enhancement of value was based on the importer's consent and that there was no challenge to the confiscation order. The Revenue contested the reduction of redemption fine and penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals), emphasizing the need for a higher penalty to discourage repeated violations by the importer.

4. The Tribunal, after considering the arguments and perusing the record, noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) had reduced the redemption fine and personal penalty based on a precedent set by the Three Member Bench of CESTAT, Delhi. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with this decision, as the precedent suggested a redemption fine of 10% and a penalty of 5% of the value of imported goods for violations of Exim Policy Provisions.

5. Consequently, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order, rejecting the appeals filed by the Revenue and disposing of the Stay Petitions. The decision was made based on the established precedent and the specific circumstances of the case, affirming the reduction of redemption fine and personal penalty as determined by the Commissioner (Appeals).