9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2012 (10) TMI 983 - HC - CustomsImposition of penalty - appellant did not produce any valid Import Licence for the clearance of the goods - Confiscation of goods - Redemption fine - Tribunal failed to advert to the question as to whether margin of profit could be a factor for determining the quantum of penalty - Held that - In the impugned order the Tribunal found that the issue to be decided in the appeal was not relatable to the fact as to whether the margin of profit can be considered to be a relevant factor for enhancement of penalty or not and concluded that there is no reason to interfere in the quantum of penalty of ₹ 4,00,000/- imposed on the appellant. It is well settled that a Collector when adjudicating confiscation acts in a quasi-judicial capacity and that he should after due enquiry take an unbiased decision in each case applying his own mind to the materials disclosed in enquiry, independently. - penalty imposed does not also violate Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act. We find that the Authorities concerned have exercised the discretion properly and no substantial question of law arises for consideration in this appeal. - Decided against assessee.
Issues:
1. Imposition of penalty for improper importation of goods without a valid Import Licence. 2. Interpretation of Sections 112(b)(i) and 125 of the Customs Act regarding the quantum of penalty. 3. Consideration of margin of profit as a factor for determining the penalty. 4. Judicial review of the penalty imposed by the Customs authorities. Analysis: Issue 1: Imposition of Penalty for Improper Importation The appellant imported Poppy Seeds without a valid Import Licence. The Customs authorities confiscated the goods and imposed a fine and penalty. The matter went through various appeals resulting in different penalties being imposed and modified, leading to the current appeal challenging the penalty of &8377; 4,00,000/-. Issue 2: Interpretation of Sections 112(b)(i) and 125 of the Customs Act The appellant argued that the penalty should not exceed the value of the goods or &8377; 5,000/- as per Section 112(b)(i) of the Customs Act. However, the authorities imposed a penalty of &8377; 4,00,000/-, which was within the permissible limits based on the market value of the confiscated goods. Section 125 allows for the option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation, which was considered in determining the penalty. Issue 3: Consideration of Margin of Profit The appellant contended that the margin of profit should be a factor in determining the penalty. However, the Tribunal found that the margin of profit was not a relevant factor for enhancing the penalty. The authorities exercised their discretion properly, and the penalty imposed did not violate the provisions of the Customs Act. Issue 4: Judicial Review of Penalty The Tribunal upheld the penalty of &8377; 4,00,000/- imposed on the appellant, stating that no substantial question of law arose for consideration in the appeal. The decision-making process of the Customs authorities was found to be in compliance with the Customs Act, and there was no reason to interfere with the quantum of penalty imposed. In conclusion, the Civil Miscellaneous Appeal was dismissed, and the Tribunal's decision to uphold the penalty of &8377; 4,00,000/- was affirmed. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to the provisions of the Customs Act in determining penalties for improper importation of goods.
|
