2024 (2) TMI 263 - AT - Customs

Quantum of redemption fine and penalty - import of used digital multifunction machines - mis-declaration of value of goods - 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. Hence have taken a lenient view and released these goods on payment of redemption fine of 10% penalty of 5%. From the Final Order in the case of M/s. Accord Digitech v. 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 M/S. S.R. ENTERPRISES VERSUS THE COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS BANGALORE-CUS. 2020 (4) TMI 421 - CESTAT BANGALORE wherein the redemption fine and penalty was 10% and 5% respectively. Considering the fact that the Department has also accepted the same in the case of M/s. Accord Digitech v. C.C., Bangalore, it is opined that in the interest of justice since 6 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. The present appeal is partially allowed by reducing the redemption fine to 10% of the enhanced value and penalty to 5% of the enhanced value. Appellant is allowed to redeem the goods for home consumption in above terms.

Summary

Issues:
The issues involved in the judgment are the confiscation of imported goods, imposition of penalty under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962, remand order by the Commissioner (Appeals), determination of redemption fine and penalty, and delay in releasing the goods.

Confiscation of Goods and Penalty Imposition:
The appellant imported used Multifunction machines and declared a value, which was later assessed higher by a Chartered Engineer. The Adjudication Authority ordered absolute confiscation of the goods and imposed a penalty under Section 112(a)(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) remanded the matter, allowing redemption of goods on payment of appropriate redemption fine while upholding the penalty imposed by the Adjudication Authority.

Appellant's Submission and Tribunal's Consideration:
The appellant's counsel argued that based on previous judgments, the goods were liable for confiscation. They highlighted the issue of delay in releasing the goods and requested a waiver of detention/demurrage charges. The Tribunal considered various decisions and found that the goods were not liable for absolute confiscation, reducing the redemption fine and penalty to 10% and 5% of the enhanced value, respectively.

Remand Order and Market Value Determination:
The Revenue produced a Tribunal order where the issue was remanded for determining the market value and calculating the redemption fine. The appellant's counsel argued that a similar matter was remanded previously, resulting in undue delay and losses for the importer. They emphasized the absence of findings on the market value in the impugned order.

Tribunal's Decision and Precedents:
The Tribunal reviewed the facts and previous decisions, noting that similar goods were released on payment of redemption fine and penalty. Considering the past judgments and accepting the enhanced value, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by reducing the redemption fine and penalty to 10% and 5% of the enhanced value, respectively.

Conclusion:
In light of previous decisions and the interest of justice due to the lapse of six years, the Tribunal partially allowed the appeal by reducing the redemption fine and penalty. The appellant was permitted to redeem the goods for home consumption under the revised terms.