9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (1) TMI 620X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the condition that the mutilation conforms to the requirements specified by the Customs Authorities. On examination of the goods, it was found that the mutilation did not conform to the norms specified through the Public Notice No. 86/94 issued by the Customs House. The importers were directed to mutilate the goods further as per Public Notice 86/94. Since they refused to do so the Customs Authorities proceeded to confiscate the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3 of Foreign Trade (Development & Regulation) Act, 1992. It was also proposed to impose penalty under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. Show cause notices were issued. Ultimately after protracted proceedings before the High Court and Supreme Co ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 0 Learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant contended that the quantum of redemption fine and penalty imposed in each case is unreasonably high. In support of the above contention he placed reliance on certain orders passed by this Tribunal as well as Commissioner of Customs under similar circumstances including the very same Commissioner who passed the impugned orders. In Final Order Nos. 1574-75/99-A, dated 5-11-99 disposing of Appeal Nos. C/70 and 253/99-A (M/s. U. Prints v. CC, Cochin), this Tribunal had occasion to consider similar contention. In that case, the imported goods were declared as pre-mutilated old synthetic/woollen rags. However, on examination of the consignment it was found that part of the goods were service ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... same officer had passed another order dated 25-4-2001 where value of the similar offending goods was assessed at Rs. 4.55 Lakhs. Redemption fine imposed was Rs. 50,000/- and penalty Rs. 10,000/-. In the light of the above, the learned Counsel for the appellant submits that the quantum of redemption fine and penalty should be reduced in these appeals. 4. Learned DR, on the other hand, would submit that in these cases under each consignment the entire goods were offending goods. Therefore, the redemption fine and penalty are not liable to be reduced as prayed by the appellants. He also pointed out that the Commissioner has also referred in some of the orders that the importers have committed similar offence on earlier occasion also. 5 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
