9911796707
TMI Blog1998 (5) TMI 238X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pondent. [Order per : K.S. Venkataramani, Vice President]. The application is for rectification of a purported mistake apparent on the face of the record in the final order of the Tribunal No. 2959/96-WZB, dated 10-9-1996. 2. The ld. Counsel for the applicant submitted that the mistake in the Tribunal s order arises out of para 21 thereof relating to decision to give the applicants opt ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the reduction fine of Rs. 25 lakhs levied by the Tribunal s order is not in accordance with Section 125 of the Customs Act. The Proviso thereof lays down that redemption fine should not exceed the market price of the goods confiscated less in case of imported goods the duty chargeable thereon. The ld. Counsel submitted that the Tribunal has imposed the redemption fine by adding 100% margin of prof ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds to be rectified. 4. V.K. Puri, the ld. SDR opposed the application and pointed out that the net effect of the application is to obtain a reduction in the quantum of the redemption fine as determined by the Tribunal in its final order which is not permissible by way of rectification application. The quantum of redemption fine is well within the maximum permissible under Section 125 in this cas ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods. In this case the Tribunal has found that there was no evidance to support the claim of the licit import of the ball bearings. Therefore their importation was not in accordance with the law and hence the redemption fine is payable because the import is illegal. Payment of redemption fine has nothing to do with payment of duty as such (See in this context Delhi High Court judgment in Punjab D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
