2014 (6) TMI 784 - AT - Customs

Redemption fine and penalty - dispute relates to quantum of redemption fine and penalty - Valuation of goods - Import of restricted second hand photocopy machine - Confiscation of goods - Held that - There is no dispute regarding the undervaluation and violation of the EXIM Policy - appellant is a habitual offender insofar as they have imported the same goods on 30.10.2005, 27.12.2006, 26.3.2007 and 6.6.2007 as evident from the impugned order. Considering this fact, I do not find any reason for reduction in the quantum of redemption fine. However, considering the overall facts and circumstances, the penalty is reduced to Rs.2,50,000 - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues: Valuation of imported second-hand photocopier machines, requirement of import license, quantum of redemption fine and penalty

The judgment pertains to the importation of 285 used second-hand photocopier machines without the necessary import license. The adjudicating authority enhanced the value of the machines and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 5,75,000/- along with a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs. The appellant did not contest the valuation and licensing aspect but sought a reduction in the redemption fine and penalty. The appellant referred to precedents where the Tribunal had reduced such fines and penalties. On the other hand, the Revenue highlighted the appellant's habitual violation of import laws, citing previous instances of similar imports without proper valuation or licensing. The Tribunal observed no dispute regarding undervaluation and violation of the EXIM Policy, focusing on the disagreement over the quantum of redemption fine and penalty. The Tribunal acknowledged the appellant's habitual offense but decided to reduce the penalty to Rs. 2,50,000/- based on the overall circumstances and past precedents. The judgment was delivered by P K Das.

In this case, the main issue revolved around the valuation and importation of used second-hand photocopier machines without the required license. The adjudicating authority had enhanced the value of the machines and imposed a redemption fine and penalty on the appellant. The appellant did not challenge the valuation or licensing aspect but sought a reduction in the redemption fine and penalty. The appellant cited previous decisions where the Tribunal had consistently reduced such fines and penalties. On the other hand, the Revenue argued that the appellant was a habitual offender, importing similar goods without proper valuation or licensing on multiple occasions. The Tribunal noted the lack of dispute regarding undervaluation and violation of the EXIM Policy but focused on determining the appropriate quantum of redemption fine and penalty. Despite acknowledging the appellant's habitual offense, the Tribunal decided to reduce the penalty to Rs. 2,50,000/- considering the overall circumstances and past precedents.

The judgment by P K Das at the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT CHENNAI addressed the issues concerning the importation of used second-hand photocopier machines without the necessary import license. The adjudicating authority had increased the value of the machines and imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 5,75,000/- along with a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs. The appellant did not contest the valuation or licensing requirement but sought a reduction in the redemption fine and penalty. The appellant referred to previous cases where the Tribunal had reduced such fines and penalties. Conversely, the Revenue highlighted the appellant's repeated violations of import laws, citing past instances of importing similar goods without proper valuation or licensing. The Tribunal, after considering the submissions from both sides and examining the records, found no dispute regarding undervaluation and violation of the EXIM Policy. The Tribunal focused on determining the appropriate quantum of redemption fine and penalty, taking into account the appellant's habitual offense. Despite the habitual nature of the offense, the Tribunal decided to reduce the penalty to Rs. 2,50,000/- based on the overall facts and circumstances of the case and past legal precedents.