9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (8) TMI 315X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of fresh garlic and sought clearance thereof under Bills of Entry filed at various points of time during the EXIM policy period 1997-2002. They declared the goods as garlic and their values in terms of the invoices issued by their foreign suppliers. The goods were of Chinese origin. The customs authorities found that the goods were covered under ITC (HS) Heading No. 070320.00, which required specific licence for import. The importers could not produce any such licence. The authorities, therefore, took a view that the goods were liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. When proceedings were accordingly proposed against the appellants, they waived show cause notice and requested for expeditious disposal of the matter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sel rely on the decision of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. Auto World - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 500 and also the decision of the Tribunal s Larger Bench in Neesha Plast Industries v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 255. In the case of Auto World, it was held that it was necessary on the part of the adjudicating authority to state reasons for arriving at a particular quantum of fine to be imposed in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the case considered by the Larger Bench, it was noted that the adjudicating authority had imposed a redemption fine which was 200% of the value of the confiscated goods and also that the fine was imposed without any discussion on the margin of profi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t licence. There is no finding of mis-declaration in that case. The redemption fine imposed in that case, as per the chart, works out to 11.8% of the value of the goods and the penalty imposed on the importer works out to 25% of the redemption fine. In another case [C/273/2002], a misdeclaration was also found by the adjudicating authority, which enhanced the value from US $ 435 to US $ 450 PMT. In this case, the redemption fine is 19.6% of the enhanced value and the penalty is 22.2% of the redemption fine. We find that there are numerous similar examples of this case before us. There are also a few cases in which the value has been enhanced by 10 US $ PMT and redemption fine has been imposed in the range of 12% to 18% of the value and pena ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... as possible and hence waived their right under Section 124. It therefore appears from the record that the adjudicating authorities determined the redemption fine on the basis of the data available on record and having regard to the facts and circumstance of the case. This appears to be true in the case of penalty also. It is also observed that the confiscability of goods has never been in challenge. Once the liability of the goods to confiscation under Section 111(d) is conceded, redemption fine will follow and, in a case where show cause notice is dispensed with at the instance of the importer, there should be a leverage for the adjudicating authority. In the present appeals, none of the appellants has brought on record the landed value o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .00 No Change No Change 06. C/487/2001 3,40,000.00 30,000.00 2,55,665.00 No Change 07. C/488/2001 2,00,000.00 50,000.00 No Change No Change 08. C/494/2001 2,25,000.00 75,000.00 No Change 67,500.00 09. C/496/2001 3,40,000.00 85,000.00 No Change No Change 10. C/499/2001 2,50,000.00 1,00,000.00 No Change 75,000.00 11. C/515/2001 1,50,000.00 37,000.00 No Change No Change 12. C/516/2001 2,00,000.00 50,000.00 No Change No Change 13. C/518/2001 3, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
