1991 (10) TMI 159 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues Involved:
Valuation of imported car, imposition of penalty, redemption fine, and applicability of ad hoc exemption.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Valuation of Imported Car:
The appellant imported a Honda Civic 1300 CC, 1987 Model car and declared its value as US $ 5,000. The Revenue authorities, however, assessed the car's value based on the world car catalogue price at Rs. 97,857/- after deductions. The Tribunal reaffirmed its consistent view that the value of imported cars should be assessed based on the world car catalogue price less 15% trade discount. Citing precedents such as B.J. Singh v. Collector of Customs and Satya Prakash Agnihotri v. Collector of Customs, the Tribunal held that the valuation method adopted by the lower authorities was correct and found no infirmity in the valuation aspect.

2. Imposition of Penalty:
The appellant contested the Rs. 5,000 penalty imposed, arguing that the order did not specify whether the penalty was under Section 112(a) or 112(b) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal referenced several cases, including B. Lakshmichand v. Government of India and Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh v. Ajit Singh, to emphasize that the charges must be clear and specific. The Tribunal concluded that the penalty lacked justification due to the absence of specific mention under Section 112(a) or 112(b) and quashed the sustained penalty of Rs. 5,000.

3. Redemption Fine:
Initially, the adjudicating authority imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 1,94,000/-, which was reduced to Rs. 1,00,000/- by the Collector (Appeals). The appellant argued for further reduction, citing the absence of mens rea and bona fide payment of duties and fines. The Tribunal considered the appellant's status as a handicapped person and the ad hoc exemption order under Section 25(2). Referring to the Supreme Court's principle of proportional punishment in Arvind Mohan Sinha v. Amulya Kumar Biswas, the Tribunal further reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 50,000/-.

4. Applicability of Ad Hoc Exemption:
The appellant initially claimed the benefit of Ad hoc exemption Order No. 254 dated 25-9-1986 but later conceded that the condition of having a steering grip was not met. Consequently, the Tribunal did not pass any order regarding the ad hoc exemption under Section 25(2) of the Customs Act, 1962.

Conclusion:
The appeal was partly allowed. The Tribunal upheld the valuation based on the world car catalogue price less 15% discount, quashed the Rs. 5,000 penalty due to lack of specificity, and reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 50,000/-. The appellant's concession regarding the ad hoc exemption was noted, and no order was passed on that issue. The Revenue authorities were directed to provide consequential relief to the appellant.