1997 (9) TMI 197 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of redemption fine on imported goods
- Allegation of denial of natural justice
- Determination of redemption fine based on market price
- Absence of penalty imposition by the adjudicating authority

Imposition of Redemption Fine:
The case involved appeals filed by an importer and the Collector of Customs regarding the imposition of redemption fines on imported goods not covered by the DEEC Book. The importer claimed to have completed export obligations and sought to clear the consignments on payment of duty. The adjudicating authority imposed a redemption fine on the imported consignments, leading to appeals from both parties. The importer argued that the redemption fine was too high, while the Collector contended it was too low as no penalty was imposed. The Tribunal upheld the impugned order regarding the redemption fine, citing the lack of evidence on prevailing market prices to determine the fine amount.

Allegation of Denial of Natural Justice:
The importer alleged a denial of natural justice as principles of natural justice were not followed by the adjudicating authority. The importer argued that they were regular exporters with DEEC Books and completed export obligations, justifying the import of goods under the DEEC scheme. However, the Tribunal found that the department was not obligated to provide detailed evidence to the importers since they had waived the issue of show cause notice and personal hearing. The Tribunal rejected the claim of denial of natural justice.

Determination of Redemption Fine Based on Market Price:
Both parties failed to produce evidence regarding the prevailing market price of the goods, crucial for determining the redemption fine as per Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Tribunal highlighted the importance of market price in calculating the redemption fine and concluded that without such evidence, there was no basis to challenge the impugned order. The lack of market price information led to the Tribunal upholding the redemption fine.

Absence of Penalty Imposition by Adjudicating Authority:
The Collector of Customs raised a concern about the adjudicating authority not imposing any penalty. However, the Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority had kept penal actions in abeyance, rendering the issue of penalty imposition not before them. The Tribunal refrained from commenting on the penalty imposition, stating it was unnecessary at that stage. Ultimately, the appeals were disposed of without interference with the impugned order.