2023 (8) TMI 562 - AT - Customs

Levy of redemption fine and penalty u/s 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962 - import of 112 units of used Multifunction machines - enhancement of value as per the Chartered Engineer s certificate - violation of import conditions - HELD THAT - It is seen from the records that there have been number of orders issued by this Tribunal and various High Courts accepting the fact that the impugned MFDs are not liable for absolute confiscation. Hence have taken a lenient view and released these goods on payment of redemption fine of 10% penalty of 5%. From the decision in ACCORD DIGITECH VERSUS C. C-BANGALORE 2020 (12) TMI 647 - CESTAT BANGALORE passed by this Tribunal, it is clearly evident that the used Digital Multifunction Printing and Copying Machine were released on payment of redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% of the enhanced value of the imported goods - This was also followed by this Bench in the case of SR ENTERPRISES AND DIGITAL EXPRESS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, BANGALORE 2021 (9) TMI 1251 - CESTAT BANGALORE wherein the redemption fine and penalty was 10% and 5% respectively. Thus, in the interest of justice since 05 years have already been lapsed, the present appeal is partially allowed by reducing the redemption fine and penalty by 10% and 5% respectively of the enhanced value - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues involved:
The issues involved in the judgment include the valuation of imported goods, alleged violation of import conditions, absolute confiscation of goods, imposition of penalty under section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, remand by the Commissioner (Appeals), determining redemption fine and penalty, delay in releasing goods, and waiver of detention/demurrage charge.

Valuation of imported goods and confiscation:
The appellant imported used Multifunction machines, which were valued differently by the appellant and the Chartered Engineer. The Adjudication Authority ordered absolute confiscation of the goods and imposed a penalty under the Customs Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter, allowing redemption of goods on payment of appropriate redemption fine but upheld the penalty.

Remand and determination of redemption fine:
The appellant argued that the issue of confiscation was settled by a Supreme Court judgment and emphasized the need for determining the market value of the goods for calculating redemption fine. The Revenue cited a Tribunal order where the economic advantage of import was considered for determining redemption fine. The appellant highlighted the delay in releasing the goods and referred to previous Tribunal decisions on similar cases.

Reduction of redemption fine and penalty:
After reviewing the arguments and previous decisions, the Tribunal noted that previous cases had allowed redemption of similar goods on payment of a redemption fine and penalty. Considering the lapse of time and consistency in previous decisions, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by reducing the redemption fine and penalty to 10% and 5% of the enhanced value, respectively.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by reducing the redemption fine to 10% and penalty to 5% of the enhanced value, allowing the appellant to redeem the goods for home consumption. The decision was based on previous judgments and the interest of justice due to the time elapsed.