9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
- Discrepancy in redemption fines and penalties for imported goods. Analysis: The judgment involves seven appeals with different appellants but a common issue regarding the imported goods and respondents. The goods in question were old and used diesel engines, ordered to be confiscated with redemption fines and penalties imposed. The redemption fines and penalties varied across the appeals, lacking uniformity in comparison to the values determined. The Tribunal examined the issue comprehensively. The Tribunal considered two main aspects: loading of valuation and redemption fine. Regarding the loading of valuation, the learned Advocate did not press the issue, leading to its rejection. Concerning the redemption fine, the Tribunal delved into the guidelines provided in the Custom Appraising Manual regarding the margin of profit and the norms for imposition of redemption fines. The Manual outlined specific criteria for determining redemption fines based on market value and the nature of the imported goods. The Tribunal emphasized the distinction between basic articles and other articles in determining redemption fines. It highlighted that second-hand goods, like the imported diesel engines, were categorized as 'Restricted' under the Exim Policy 1997-2002, not 'prohibited/banned'. The Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to 45% of the c.i.f. value, considering the goods as Capital Goods machinery. Additionally, the penalty was set at 5% of the same c.i.f. value to maintain consistency across the appeals. In conclusion, the Tribunal disposed of the appeals by addressing the discrepancies in redemption fines and penalties for the imported goods. By applying the relevant guidelines and considering the nature of the goods, the Tribunal ensured a fair and uniform approach in determining the fines and penalties across the appeals.
|
