9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Incorrect appreciation of evidence by the Collector of Customs regarding the imported outboard motors' horsepower rating. 2. Discrepancy between the appellants' claim of the motors being 10 H.P. and the Department's assertion that they are actually designed for 11 H.P. 3. Request for testing the remaining two motors in possession of Customs Department to determine their horsepower rating. 4. Appellants' argument that the fine and penalty imposed are unwarranted and excessive. Analysis: The case involved an appeal against the order of the Collector of Customs, Cochin, concerning the import of 36 Evinrude Outboard motors declared to be of 10 H.P. The Department contended that the motors were designed for over 10 H.P., exceeding the import license limit. The Collector confiscated the goods, imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh, and a personal penalty of Rs. 25,000. The appellants argued that the evidence was incorrectly appreciated, emphasizing their instruction to suppliers for 10 H.P. motors. They cited a previous Tribunal decision where the benefit of doubt was given to the appellants due to lack of testing before clearance. They proposed testing the two remaining motors to determine their current rating. The appellants also claimed that even if the motors were 11 H.P., the penalties were excessive. The Department, represented by the S.D.R., reiterated that the motors were cataloged as 11 H.P. and presented evidence of a message instructing suppliers to recalibrate to 10 H.P. The Department's investigation revealed the motors were originally 11 H.P. and could easily be upgraded. They argued that the Technical Literature confirmed the motors' 11 H.P. rating, which was not disputed by the appellants. The Department opposed testing the remaining motors, emphasizing the actual design rating and the potential for recalibration. The Tribunal carefully considered the arguments and evidence presented. The appellants claimed the motors were 10 H.P., while the Department asserted they were designed for 11 H.P. The Tribunal noted the appellants' request for testing the remaining motors but ultimately relied on the catalog, undisputed by the appellants, showing the motors were designed for 11 H.P. The Tribunal rejected the appellants' reliance on a previous case, stating the facts were different, and confirmed the motors' identity as 11 H.P. rated. The appeal for testing the remaining motors was denied. Regarding the fines and penalties, the Tribunal found that the appellants were aware of the motors' actual rating, instructed recalibration, and concealed this information. This behavior indicated mala-fides, justifying the confiscation and penalties imposed. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal, upholding the Department's decision.
|
