2015 (1) TMI 534 - HC - Customs

Imposition of penalty - Repeat offender - old and used photocopier machines imported was imported without licence - Held that - Repeat violator has to be imposed appropriate fine and penalty in order that the same acts as a deterrent to the repeated violation of law, however, at the same time, the Tribunal could not lose site of the fact that in similar cases it had reduced redemption fine to 10% and penalty to 5%. Without going into the issue whether the restriction imposed vide notification dated 05.06.2012 was applicable or not in view of the period involved being prior to 05.06.2012, we hold that the ends of justice would be met if the quantum of redemption fine and penalty is reduced from the excessive rate at which it has been imposed to 20% each of redemption fine as well as penalty imposed vide the order in original - Following decision of M/s BE Office Automation Products Limited, Baddi Vs. Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgaon 2013 (11) TMI 1032 - PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT - Decided partly in favour of assessee.

Summary

Issues:
- Appeal under section 130 of the Customs Act seeking quashing of a Final Order passed by the Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal.
- Discrepancy in the declared value of imported consignment leading to confiscation and imposition of penalties.
- Reduction of redemption fine and penalty by the Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals).
- Disagreement over the imposition of fine and penalty by the Tribunal.
- Interpretation of statutory provisions regarding redemption fine and penalty.
- Comparison with previous judgments regarding the quantum of redemption fine and penalty.
- Argument for reduction of redemption fine and penalty based on market price and past precedents.

Analysis:
- The appeal was filed seeking to set aside the Final Order passed by the Tribunal, which had upheld the confiscation of goods and imposition of fines and penalties based on the discrepancy in the declared value of imported consignment. The respondent contended that the goods were imported without the required license, making them liable for confiscation under the Customs Act.
- The Commissioner of Central Excise (Appeals) had reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority, leading to further appeals by both parties. The Tribunal, relying on previous decisions, upheld the confiscation and imposition of fines, considering the licensing regulations in force at the time of import.
- The appellant argued for a reduction in redemption fine and penalty, citing discrepancies in the Tribunal's decision compared to previous judgments. They emphasized the need for uniformity in imposing fines and penalties, pointing out that the heavy fines made the cost of goods prohibitive and caused significant losses.
- The Madras High Court's judgment highlighted the statutory provisions limiting the redemption fine and penalty to certain percentages of the market price or value of goods, providing discretion to the authorities. The Court emphasized the need for a justifiable exercise of discretion in imposing fines and penalties.
- The Court referred to previous judgments where redemption fines were reduced to specific percentages of the value of goods, indicating a consistent approach in similar cases. The Court emphasized the importance of deterrence for repeat violators while ensuring that fines and penalties are not excessive.
- Ultimately, the Court modified the Tribunal's order, reducing the quantum of redemption fine and penalty to 20% each of the value of goods, aligning with previous judgments and statutory provisions. The Court affirmed the modified order, addressing the appellant's plea for reduction in redemption fine and penalty based on market price and past precedents.