1998 (1) TMI 122 - AT - Customs

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay in filing the appeal before the Commissioner (Appeals) and subsequent rejection.
2. Confiscation of imported goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962.
3. Imposition of redemption fine and penalty under Sections 111(d) and 112 of the Customs Act, 1962.
4. Comparison of the present case with previous judgments for determining redemption fine and penalty.

Analysis:
1. The appellants imported old and used diesel engines and filed a bill of entry for home consumption, claiming clearance under OGL. However, the Custom House required a specific Import License, leading to confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Dy. Commissioner imposed a redemption fine of Rs. 9,50,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 1,00,000/- on the appellants. The appeal against this order was rejected by the Commissioner (Appeals) on the grounds of being time-barred.

2. The appellants argued that there was no delay in filing the appeal as they received the order of the Dy. Commissioner in April 1995 and filed the appeal with the Commissioner (Appeals) on 30-6-1995. They sought relief in redemption fine and penalty, referring to a previous judgment by the Tribunal where a 100% redemption fine and 10% penalty were deemed appropriate for similar imports of used diesel engines.

3. The Tribunal noted that the appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit under Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1962. The appellants did not contest the confiscation but sought a reduction in the redemption fine and penalty based on previous judgments. Following the precedent set by previous decisions, the Tribunal reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 5,91,655/- and the penalty to Rs. 60,000/-, deeming them reasonable and appropriate in this case.

4. By comparing the present case with previous judgments, including decisions by the Madras Bench and the current Tribunal, the Tribunal determined the appropriate level of redemption fine and penalty. The decision was based on the percentage of CIF value accepted in similar cases involving the import of used diesel engines. The appellants were granted consequential relief as per the law, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly.