9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2003 (7) TMI 75 - HC - CustomsReference to High Court - refund of the redemption fine and penalty - HELD THAT - We are of the opinion that there are no questions of law which can be said to arise out of the order of the Tribunal. It is not disputed by the Revenue that the facts in the case of the Respondents i.e. Marmo Classic and the facts in the case of Stonemann Marble Industries 2002 (1) TMI 1254 - CEGAT MUMBAI and Jai Bhagwati Impex Pvt. Ltd. 2001 (11) TMI 579 - CEGAT MUMBAI are similar. On perusal of the orders passed by the Tribunal in the case of Stonemann Marble Industries and Jai Bhagwati Impex Pvt. Ltd. it is seen that the Tribunal has reduced the redemption fine and penalty by taking into account the margin of profits and the demurrage incurred by the importers of the said consignments. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal in similar circumstances have taken a uniform view to restrict the redemption fine to 20% of the CIF value and penalty to 5% of the CIF value. Thus it is evident that the decision of the Tribunal is essentially based on finding of fact. The Tribunal has reduced the redemption fine and penalty by taking into account its earlier decision as well as the margin profit and the amount of demurrage incurred on the goods. It is not disputed by the Revenue that the CEGAT has power to reduce the redemption fine and penalty. Therefore in the facts of the case whether the reduction in redemption fine and penalty is justified or not is essentially a finding of fact and no material has been adduced by the Revenue to establish that the order of the Tribunal is ex-facie perverse arbitrary and contrary to the facts on record. Thus we see no merits in the Customs Applications filed by the Revenue. Accordingly all the Customs applications filed by the Revenue are dismissed. However there will be no order as to costs.
Issues:
Customs Act, 1962 - Section 130A - Questions of law arising from Tribunal's order - Reduction of redemption fine and penalty - Justification for reduction - Finding of fact - Power of CEGAT to reduce fine and penalty - Merits of Customs Applications filed by Revenue. Analysis: The judgment pertains to Customs Applications filed under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962, where the Commissioner of Customs sought an order directing the CEGAT, Mumbai to raise and refer certain questions of law arising from the Tribunal's order. The case involved the importation of raw/rough marble blocks under a specific Customs Tariff Heading. The Commissioner confiscated the goods for violating import policy but allowed redemption on payment of fine and penalty. The CEGAT reduced the fine and penalty in appeal, prompting the Commissioner to file the present applications questioning the reduction. The main legal questions raised by the Commissioner included whether the Tribunal was right in law to reduce the redemption fine and penalty without examining the facts of the case and if the Tribunal had the authority to intervene in the fines imposed by the Commissioner. The Senior Counsel for the Applicant argued that the Tribunal's decision lacked reasoning and precedent for reducing the fines. He contended that the Tribunal's decision in a previous case did not establish principles for such reductions and that the dismissal of a Special Leave Petition did not imply acceptance of the decision by the Apex Court. On the other hand, the Respondents' Counsel argued that the Tribunal had reduced the fines based on earlier decisions and that the Revenue had accepted and implemented the Tribunal's orders in other cases. The Respondents claimed that the Revenue's Reference Applications were an attempt to delay refunds due to them. The Respondents had to file a Writ Petition to enforce the Tribunal's order, which had been done for other importers without issue. After hearing both sides, the Court concluded that no questions of law arose from the Tribunal's order. The Court noted that the facts in the present case were similar to previous cases where fines were reduced based on profit margins and demurrage costs. The Tribunal's decision to limit the redemption fine and penalty to specific percentages of the CIF value was consistent with earlier cases. The Court found that the Tribunal's decision was based on factual findings and within its power to reduce fines. The Revenue failed to demonstrate that the Tribunal's decision was arbitrary or perverse. Consequently, the Customs Applications filed by the Revenue were dismissed, and no costs were awarded. In summary, the judgment addressed the legality of the Tribunal's decision to reduce redemption fines and penalties imposed by the Commissioner of Customs. The Court found no legal grounds to challenge the Tribunal's decision, as it was based on factual considerations and within the Tribunal's authority. The judgment emphasized the importance of factual findings and consistency in applying principles across similar cases.
|
