2019 (9) TMI 288 - AT - Customs

Valuation of imported goods - enhancement of declared value - violation of Import Trade Control restrictions - enhancement of value has been ordered by the First Appellate Authority on the basis of concurrence given by the importer for such enhancement - quantum of redemption fine and penalty - HELD THAT - The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has ordered reduction of redemption fine and personal penalty on the basis of ratio laid down by the Three Member Bench of CESTAT, Delhi in the case of M/S. OMEX INTERNATIONAL VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, NEW DELHI 2015 (4) TMI 112 - CESTAT NEW DELHI (LB) . The Three Member Bench has taken the view that redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% of the value of the imported goods, would be appropriate in case of import violating Exim Policy Provisions. There are no reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on the basis of such decision. Appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue.

Summary

Issues:
Delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal, enhancement of value of imported goods, confiscation of goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, reduction of redemption fine and personal penalty, challenge to the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) reducing redemption fine and personal penalty, appropriateness of redemption fine and penalty, application of precedent from Three Member Bench of CESTAT Delhi.

Analysis:

1. Delay in Filing Appeal:
The Miscellaneous Application was filed by the Appellant to condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. The delay was condoned based on the reasons explained in the application, and the Miscellaneous Application was allowed.

2. Enhancement of Value of Imported Goods and Confiscation:
The respondent imported used and worn unmutilated and fumigated mix cloth, and the declared value of the goods was enhanced during original assessment. The original adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, for violating Import Trade Control restrictions.

3. Reduction of Redemption Fine and Personal Penalty:
The First Appellate Authority upheld the order of confiscation and enhancement of value but reduced the redemption fine and personal penalty imposed. The Revenue challenged this reduction, arguing for an increase in the redemption fine and penalty as a deterrent for repeated violations by the importer.

4. Application of Precedent and Decision:
The Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) based the reduction of redemption fine and personal penalty on a precedent set by the Three Member Bench of CESTAT Delhi in a specific case. The Three Member Bench had established that a redemption fine of 10% and a penalty of 5% of the value of imported goods would be appropriate for violations of Exim Policy Provisions.

5. Final Decision:
After hearing arguments from the Revenue's representative and reviewing the records, the Tribunal upheld the impugned order. The appeal filed by the Revenue was rejected, and the Stay Petitions were disposed of. The Tribunal found no reason to interfere with the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision based on the precedent from the Three Member Bench of CESTAT Delhi.

This detailed analysis covers the issues of delay in filing the appeal, the confiscation of goods, the reduction of redemption fine and personal penalty, and the application of a specific precedent in making the final decision.