9911796707
TMI Blog2004 (8) TMI 504X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ese 12 consignments, the provisional assessments made in respect of 10 consignments were finalized during 1991-1992. In respect of the remaining 2 consignments, covered by Bills of Entry Nos. 23359 23360 both dated 6-7-1991, the provisional assessments were finalized on 5-12-1994, whereby the duty-free clearance of the goods in terms of Notification No. 64/88-Cus., dated 1-3-1988 was approved. Later on, however, an investigation was launched by the department to ascertain whether the post-importation conditions of the Notification were being complied with by the importer. It appeared from the results of investigation that the post-importation requirements under the Notification had not been fulfilled by the assessee and, accordingly, the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 112). On these questions, we have heard both sides. 4. Ld. Counsel submits that the adjudicating authority has not stated any valid reason for determining the excessive fine of Rs. 47.00 lakhs. The Commissioner ought to have considered the fact that the value of the goods had substantially diminished over the years since importation. That the appellants are a non-profit-making hospital within the meaning of Section 125 of the Companies Act was also not considered by the Commissioner. No attempt was even made to ascertain the market value of the goods for the purpose of determining redemption fine in terms of the proviso to Section 125(1). The subject goods were not liable to be valued in excess of Rs. 27,04,000/-. Ld. Counsel has ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g authority. Reliance has been placed on the judgment of the Calcutta High Court in Pradeep Ch. Saha v. Additional Collector of Customs - 1993 (68) E.L.T. 525 (Cal.). This decision has also been pressed into service by ld. SDR in support of the point that it was the date of importation, and not the date of adjudication, that was relevant for determination of quantum of redemption fine. With regard to penalty also, ld. SDR submits, the Commissioner has taken all the relevant factors into consideration in Para 11 of his order. The penalty of Rs. 50,000/- is reasonable by all means. 6. We have carefully considered the submissions. At the outset, we reject the Counsel s contention that the redemption fine should have been determined with refe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne had been arrived at. In the instant case also, we find, it is not discernible from the impugned order as to how the fine of Rs. 47.00 lakhs was arrived at. Though, in their reply to the show-cause notice, the importer had claimed a much lower value for the goods in question, that claim apparently was not considered by the adjudicating authority. As imposition of redemption fine is penal in nature, it is incumbent on the authority imposing such fine to take into account such relevant factors as the bona fides of the importer's conduct also as held by the Apex Court in Jain Exports (supra). The impugned order does not reflect such considerations. It is apparent from the record that the appellant-hospital is a non-profit-making institution, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
