2023 (8) TMI 564 - AT - Customs

Levy of redemption fine and penalty u/s 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act 1962 - import of 230 units of used Multifunction machines - enhancement of value as per the Chartered Engineer s certificate - violation of import conditions - HELD THAT - It is seen from the records that there have been number of orders issued by this Tribunal and various High Courts accepting the fact that the impugned MFDs are not liable for absolute confiscation. Considering lack of indigenous facility for manufacturing Multi Function Machines lenient view is taken on such import and imported used MFD are released on payment of redemption fine of 10% penalty of 5%. From the decision in ACCORD DIGITECH VERSUS C. C-BANGALORE 2020 (12) TMI 647 - CESTAT BANGALORE passed by this Tribunal it is clearly evident that the used Digital Multifunction Printing and Copying Machine were released on payment of redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% of the enhanced value of the imported goods - This was also followed by this Bench in the case of SR ENTERPRISES AND DIGITAL EXPRESS VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS BANGALORE 2021 (9) TMI 1251 - CESTAT BANGALORE wherein the redemption fine and penalty was 10% and 5% respectively. Thus in the interest of justice since 06 years have already been lapsed the present appeal is partially allowed by reducing the redemption fine and penalty by 10% and 5% respectively of the enhanced value - appeal allowed in part.

Summary

Issues:
The judgment involves the issues of absolute confiscation of imported goods, imposition of penalty under section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, determination of redemption fine, delay in releasing goods, and waiver of detention/demurrage charge.

Absolute Confiscation and Penalty:
The appellant imported used Multifunction machines and faced allegations of violating various provisions of law, leading to a show cause notice and subsequent order of absolute confiscation of the goods with a penalty imposed under section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) later remanded the matter, allowing redemption of goods on payment of an appropriate redemption fine while upholding the penalty. The appellant challenged this order in the present appeal, arguing that the issue of confiscation was settled by a Supreme Court judgment and that the redemption fine and penalty should be based on market value, citing previous Tribunal decisions.

Market Value and Redemption Fine:
The appellant's counsel highlighted the importance of determining the market value of the goods for calculating the redemption fine and penalty. They argued that in similar cases, goods were released upon payment of a redemption fine of 10% and a penalty of 5% on the enhanced assessable value. The counsel emphasized the need for clarity on market value and criticized the delay in releasing the goods due to remand orders, seeking a waiver of detention/demurrage charges.

Remand Order and Market Value Determination:
The Revenue presented a Tribunal order where the issue of absolute confiscation was remanded to lower authorities to neutralize the economic advantage of import. The appellant's counsel countered this by referencing a similar case where the Tribunal directed the Adjudication Authority to find the market value of the goods. Despite specific directions, the Adjudication Authority imposed a redemption fine equivalent to the value of the goods, leading to prolonged legal proceedings and losses for the importer.

Tribunal Decisions and Reduction of Fine and Penalty:
The Tribunal considered various past decisions where goods were released on payment of a redemption fine of 10% and a penalty of 5% of the enhanced value. Citing precedents and the interest of justice due to the prolonged legal process, the Tribunal partially allowed the present appeal by reducing the redemption fine and penalty to 10% and 5% of the enhanced value, respectively, allowing the appellant to redeem the goods for home consumption.

Final Decision:
In light of previous decisions and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by reducing the redemption fine and penalty to 10% and 5% of the enhanced value, respectively. The appellant was granted permission to redeem the goods for home consumption under the revised terms.