9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Violation of Import Control Order, enhancement of redemption fine and penalty, exercise of discretion by lower appellate authority. Analysis: The case involved multiple instances where importers brought in goods without the required import license, violating the Import Control Order. The Assistant Commissioner raised the invoice value of the goods and imposed penalties. The lower appellate authority reduced the redemption fine and penalty, prompting the Revenue to appeal seeking enhancement, arguing that the reduction would not deter future violations. The respondents' counsels requested an adjournment, but the judge proceeded with the hearing based on the arguments presented. The Department contended that the low redemption fine and penalty set by the lower appellate authority were inadequate considering the value of the goods and the need to deter future violations. The judge reviewed the orders of the authorities, the submissions made by the Department, and the assessable values determined by the Assistant Commissioner. Importers did not dispute the assessed values and paid duties accordingly. The judge noted that the import of the goods was for use in manufacturing Unani/Ayurvedic drugs, which influenced the exercise of discretion by the lower appellate authority in reducing the fines and penalties. Ultimately, the judge upheld the lower appellate authority's decision, stating that the reduction in fines and penalties was appropriate given the circumstances. The judge found no strong reason to interfere with the lower appellate authority's exercise of discretion, emphasizing that the fines and penalties should not negate the profit margin on the goods. Therefore, the appeals by the Revenue seeking enhancement of fines and penalties were rejected, and the lower appellate authority's orders were upheld.
|
