2013 (10) TMI 952 - AT - Customs

Import of marbles without licence - Modification of the quantum of redemption fine and penalties - Whether, as per DGFT Notification No. 23/2005-2009 dated 31.8.05, read with Circular No. 24 (RE-05) 2004-2009 dated 30.8.2005, import of goods covered under CTH (HS) 2515 1210 are restricted and needed a valid import licence - Held that - petitioners who are in the business of marble and have become a habitual importer of goods in spite of the fact that they are very well aware of the law that the imports have to be backed by a valid licence. Inspite of this, if the petitioners are repeatedly including in importing marbles without licence, or subsequently obtain licence to cover up illegal imports then it would be a duty of writ Court to arrest such tendency prevailing amongst the importers of the goods. The Apex Court in the case of Her Shankar and Others v. Deputy Excise & Taxation Commissioner and Others 1975 (1) TMI 89 - SUPREME COURT ruled that the writ jurisdiction of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not intended to facilitate avoidance of legal obligation and to commit breach of law for the time being in force. The extraordinary jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226, which is of a discretionary nature and is to be exercised only to advance the interest of the justice, cannot certainly be employed in aid of such persons; who have no respect for the law of land and who are deliberately indulging in committing breach thereof. This Court would not be justified in invoking writ jurisdiction in favour of such persons. Writ jurisdiction is available to further the cause of regime of law, not to abrogate the same. In the facts of this case the consignments confiscated by the Customs authorities cannot be allowed to be released on the licence which were sought to be produced by the petitioners. The importers who are importing goods without licence and then seek to validate the import by obtaining subsequent licence or licences cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own wrong. The petitioners are one of them. In view of the above background of Marble block imports before the appellants affected the present imports, it is evident that imposition of lower fines and penalties have not deterred the marble traders from importing the sensitive commodity which may affect indigenous industry. No contemporary imports of rough marble slabs have been brought on record by the appellants where lesser redemption fine and penalties were imposed. There is also no evidence produced by the appellants that they had to pay huge demurrage charges in the detention and clearance of the impugned consignments. In view of the above observations there is no case for modification of the quantum of redemption fine and penalties imposed by the adjudicating authority - Decided against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Imposition of redemption fine and penalty on imported rough marble blocks
- Applicability of previous judgments on quantum of redemption fine and penalty
- Effectiveness of fines and penalties as deterrents for illegal imports

Analysis:
1. The appeals involved the imposition of redemption fine and penalty on imported rough marble blocks under specific customs regulations. The appellants sought a lenient view due to low profits and incurred charges. The adjudicating authority allowed redemption by imposing fines and penalties based on the assessable value under Sections 125 and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962.

2. The appellant's advocate argued for a reduction in the quantum of redemption fine and penalty, citing a previous judgment by CESTAT Mumbai. The Revenue's representative contended that previous judgments might not be directly applicable to the current imports from Vietnam in 2007, emphasizing the lack of evidence regarding additional charges incurred by the appellants.

3. The Tribunal considered the arguments and previous judgments, noting the variations in MOP and country of origin affecting redemption fines. The Third Member's decision highlighted the ineffectiveness of previous fines as deterrents for illegal imports, leading to the affirmation of the redemption fine and penalties imposed by the Commissioner.

4. The matter was further escalated to the Bombay High Court, which emphasized the need to deter habitual illegal importers through appropriate fines and penalties. The High Court's decision underscored the importance of upholding legal obligations and preventing the misuse of subsequent licenses to validate illegal imports.

5. Ultimately, the Tribunal rejected the appeals, emphasizing the lack of evidence supporting the appellants' claims of excessive demurrage charges and the need to maintain fines and penalties to deter unauthorized imports. The judgment highlighted the significance of upholding regulations to protect the domestic industry from potential adverse effects of unauthorized imports.