2002 (10) TMI 212 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Appropriate quantum of fine and penalty for the confiscated rough marble blocks.
2. Determination of landed cost and addition of 10% on the CIF value.
3. Acceptance and debiting of SILs (Special Import Licenses).
4. Enhancement of declared value to US $300 PMT.
5. Confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
6. Repeated offenses and their impact on fine and penalty.
7. Market value determination for the purpose of fine and penalty.
8. Allowance for excess weight in imports.

Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

1. Appropriate Quantum of Fine and Penalty:
The appeals primarily questioned the quantum of fine and penalty imposed by the Commissioner of Customs on the confiscated rough marble blocks. The Tribunal noted that the fines and penalties imposed by the Commissioner were within a reasonable range and did not warrant enhancement. It was emphasized that the adjudicating officer has discretion in fixing fines and penalties, and appellate authorities should be reluctant to interfere unless the penalties are grossly disproportionate or based on errors of fact or principle.

2. Determination of Landed Cost and Addition of 10% on CIF Value:
In the appeals of Cosper Impex and Ramdhan Mohanlal & Co., the Revenue objected to the addition of 10% towards incidental charges to determine the landed cost. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner's decision, noting that the addition was justified based on actual expenses like terminal handling charges, transport charges, and interest charges. The Tribunal referenced the case of CC, Calcutta v. Star Enterprises, which supported the allowance of such incidental charges.

3. Acceptance and Debiting of SILs:
Several appeals involved the production of SILs by importers, which were either not debited or not accepted by the Commissioner. The Tribunal held that once the goods were assessed at a particular CIF value, the same value should be applied for determining Exim Policy requirements. Therefore, there was no reason not to accept the SILs to avoid confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. This stance was supported by the Tribunal's decision in CC (Import) v. Royal Impex & Others.

4. Enhancement of Declared Value to US $300 PMT:
In appeals involving Mansi Impex, Luckystone, and Stonemann Marble Industries, the Commissioner had enhanced the declared value to US $300 PMT. The Tribunal found no error in this enhancement, as it aligned with the conditions for importation during the relevant period.

5. Confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962:
The Tribunal upheld the confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) but noted that fines and penalties imposed should be proportionate to the offense. The appeals did not provide sufficient grounds for increasing the fines and penalties beyond what the Commissioner had already imposed.

6. Repeated Offenses and Their Impact on Fine and Penalty:
The Revenue argued for higher fines and penalties on the grounds that the importers were repeated offenders. The Tribunal rejected this argument, stating that repeated violations must be strictly proven. It referenced the case of Akash Stone Industries & Others v. CC, which held that multiple bills of entry from the same order confirmation do not constitute proof of repeated violations. The Tribunal emphasized the need for strict proof of repeated offenses to justify higher penalties.

7. Market Value Determination for Fine and Penalty:
The Revenue relied on market enquiries to justify a higher market value of Rs. 25,000 PMT for marble blocks. However, the Tribunal found no record of such enquiries and noted that the actual sale prices in India were significantly lower (Rs. 8,500 to Rs. 9,000). The Tribunal accepted the Commissioner's adopted prices and rejected the higher values proposed by the Revenue.

8. Allowance for Excess Weight in Imports:
In cases where excess weight was noticed, the Tribunal referenced the case of M/s. Siddharth Polymers v. CC, Kandla, which recognized the practice of allowing some excess to compensate for breakage. The Tribunal rejected the plea for enhancement of fines and penalties based on excess weight, aligning with the established practice.

Conclusion:
The Tribunal dismissed the appeals from the Revenue, finding no justification for enhancing the fines and penalties imposed by the Commissioner. The cross-objection filed by Cosper Impex for reducing the quantum of fine and penalty was also dismissed for lack of substantiation. The Tribunal emphasized the discretion of the adjudicating authority in fixing fines and penalties and the need for appellate authorities to respect this discretion unless there are compelling reasons to interfere.