9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (6) TMI 508X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 28-3-2002 was filed by the appellant before Nhava Sheva Customs for the clearance of a consignment declared as aluminium scrap telic . The declared value was Rs. 3.09 lakhs. Based on information that the goods have been misdeclared, DRI officers intercepted and examined the cargo. The examination revealed that tin ingots and cobalt worth more than Rs. 26.5 lakhs had been concealed in the aluminium scrap consignment. The authorities also intercepted and examined another consignment under import by the appellant which was awaiting clearance. The examination of this consignment (container No. EMSU 2493215) revealed that along with the aluminium scrap, there was precious cargo worth about Rs. 60.28 lakhs namely, tin ingots, nickel and integra ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Marketing to M/s. Max Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. With regard to redemption fine, the contention of the appellant is that it is too high and is far in excess of the margin of profit. Learned Counsel submits that the method of valuation, and quantum of redemption fine are against settled law. 4. Learned SDR has pointed out that this is a case involving massive fraud on customs revenue. As against the declared value of over Rs. 16 lakhs the consignments were found to contain concealed materials worth about Rs. 84.5 lakhs also. The learned SDR has, therefore, emphasised that this is a case of deliberate fraud of smuggling precious items in the guise of aluminium scrap. Learned SDR has also emphasised that given the deliberate and planned nature ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dity price reports in newspaper/journals) during the period of import at around Rs. 1.21 crores. It is the learned SDR s submission that since the duty on the consignment worked out to less than Rs. 30 lakhs, under law, the Commissioner could have imposed a redemption fine not exceeding Rs. 90 lakhs [the market value (Rs. 1.21 crores) - duty (Rs. 30 lakhs) = Rs. 91 lakhs.] The learned SDR has also pointed out that considerations like eliminating the margin of profit cannot be the guiding principle in a case of smuggling. The learned SDR has further submitted that adjudication order must be upheld in its totality since the penalty imposed on the appellant is small (Rs. 8.4 lakhs). Learned SDR has contended that no relief is deserved in the p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... re being transferred to the appellant from his related firm in Singapore. The appellant is in best position to disclose the value of the goods. The appellant is a trading firm. In that way, it is in the best position to bring on record the market value of the imported goods India. Still silence is being resorted to. The reason can be only one, that by holding back the correct information, the appellant hopes to benefit before the adjudicating/Appellate authority. This is deliberate abuse of legal process and is not to be brooked. In these circumstances, we find merit in the justifications offered by the Revenue authorities for the redemption fine and method of valuation. Clearly, the order does not violate in substance the provision of law ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
