1994 (6) TMI 77 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Whether the goods imported were spares or complete instruments.
2. Whether a lenient view should be taken in reducing the fine imposed.
3. Whether the appeal should be rejected based on deliberate violation of law and repeated offenses.

Analysis:
1. The case involved the importation of goods declared as spares but found to be complete instruments by the Adjudicating Authority. The appellants sought clearance against an additional license, but the Authority ordered confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, with an option to redeem the goods by paying a fine of Rs. 1,20,000. The Tribunal considered past cases where similar goods were treated as spares and decided to reduce the redemption fine to Rs. 60,000, emphasizing leniency due to similarities with previous cases.

2. The appellants argued for leniency in reducing the fine, citing the Tribunal's previous order and the opening of a letter of credit before the adjudication order. The Revenue opposed, highlighting the party's repeated offenses and deliberate violation of import policy. The Tribunal acknowledged the need for leniency but noted the party's failure to inform the Adjudicating Authority of the earlier offense, leading to a reduction in the redemption fine to 50% of the imposed amount.

3. A difference of opinion arose between the Vice President and the Member (Judicial) regarding whether a lenient view was warranted or if the appeal should be rejected. The Member (Judicial) emphasized the deliberate violation of law and repeated offenses, rejecting the appeal. However, the Member (Technical) supported the Vice President's view, considering the party's awareness of customs objections and the invocation of Section 111(m) in the show cause notice, leading to the rejection of the appeal based on the majority opinion.

In conclusion, the Tribunal decided to reject the appeal based on the majority opinion, emphasizing the party's repeated offenses and the need to uphold the rule of law despite arguments for leniency in reducing the fine.