9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Excess weight found in imported marble consignments. 2. Lack of specific import license as required by Exim Policy. 3. Confiscation of marble under Customs Act, 1962. 4. Imposition of fine and penalty on importers. 5. Change in Exim Policy affecting marble import valuation. 6. Calculation of fine based on market prices and valuation errors. 7. Reduction of fine and penalty imposed on importers. Issue 1: Excess weight found in imported marble consignments The appellants imported marble in six consignments with a declared weight of 421.930 MT, but physical weighment revealed 431.586 MT, an excess of 2.28% over the declared weight. The excess weight led to confiscation under Sections 111(d) and 111(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants argued that the excess was notional due to historical practices at the Bombay Custom House, but the tribunal upheld the confiscation based on the weighment discrepancy being within a reasonable margin of error. Issue 2: Lack of specific import license as required by Exim Policy The Exim Policy in force during the import of marble necessitated a specific import license, which the importers did not possess. This non-compliance was a key factor in the confiscation of the marble under Sections 111(d), 111(i), and 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. The importers waived the formal show cause notice, leading to the Commissioner of Customs, Pune, declaring the consignments as unauthorized imports. Issue 3: Confiscation of marble under Customs Act, 1962 The Commissioner of Customs, Pune, held the marble consignments as unauthorisedly imported due to mis-declaration in weight and absence of a valid import license. The appellants were allowed to clear the marble upon payment of a fine of Rs. 48 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 10 lakhs. The tribunal upheld the orders of confiscation under Sections 111(d), 111(i), and 111(m) after considering the submissions made during the appeal. Issue 4: Imposition of fine and penalty on importers The Commissioner imposed a fine of Rs. 48 lakhs, deemed excessive by the appellants, who argued that changes in the Exim Policy affected the valuation of imported marble. They claimed that the fine calculation was incorrect and highlighted discrepancies in market prices used for valuation. The tribunal acknowledged the changes in the Exim Policy but reduced the quantum of the fine from Rs. 48 lakhs to Rs. 16,20,000, considering the market conditions and the impact on importers. Issue 5: Change in Exim Policy affecting marble import valuation The appellants argued that post-importation changes in the Exim Policy, especially regarding Special Import Licenses (SILs), influenced the valuation of marble imports. They claimed that the availability and transferability of SILs in the market affected the declared values of marble, leading to lower market prices and reduced profit margins. This argument contributed to the reduction of the fine imposed on the appellants. Issue 6: Calculation of fine based on market prices and valuation errors The appellants contested the fine calculation, citing discrepancies in market prices and valuation methods used by the Commissioner. They referred to a previous case involving similar valuation issues and highlighted a corrigendum issued by the Commissioner to adjust market prices post-appeal filing. The tribunal considered these valuation errors and adjusted the quantum of the fine accordingly. Issue 7: Reduction of fine and penalty imposed on importers Considering the totality of circumstances, including the lack of a valid license at the time of importation, the tribunal found scope for remission in the quantum of penalty imposed on the importers. Consequently, the penalty was reduced from Rs. 10,00,000 to Rs. 3,00,000. With these modifications, the tribunal dismissed the appeal while granting relief to the importers in terms of fine and penalty amounts.
|
