9911796707
TMI Blog2009 (6) TMI 840X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be considered as a reason for imposition of fine and penalty if the appellant is not put to notice. The appellants are required to pay redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% of the value of goods as arrived by the adjudicating authority - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - C/299-310/2009 - 781-792/2009 - Dated:- 11-6-2009 - Shri M.V. Ravindran, J. REPRESENTED BY : Shri P.A. Augustin, Advocate, for the Appellant. Shri K.S. Srinivas, JDR, for the Respondent. [Order]. All these appeals are directed against the order-in-appeals and the details are :- Appeal No. Appellant OIO No. Assessable value/ Fine/Penalty (Rs.) Order-in-Appeal Redemption Fine/ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /s. High Mount Business Systems 3/2008 Rs. 15,58,453/- Rs. 4,68,000/- Rs. 78,000/- No. 10/2009 dt. 23-1-2009 Rs. 3,99,913/ Rs. 78,000/- C/308/2009 M/s. Mahavir Enterprises 4/2008 Rs. 28,24,466/- Rs. 8,48,000/- Rs. 1,42,000/ - No. 11/2009 dt. 23-1-2009 Rs. 7,62,595/- Rs. 1,42,000/- C/309/2009 M/s. Impact System Inc. 10/2008 Rs. 24,50,421/- Rs. 7,35,000/- Rs. 1,22,500/- No. 13/2009 dt. 23-1-2009 Rs. 5,91,651/- Rs. 1,22,500/- C/310/2009 M/s. Rewa Enterprises 61/2007 Rs. 26,21,163/- Rs. 6,56,000/- Rs. 1,32,000/- No. 14/2009 dt. 23 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. The issue ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) equal to 35% of the value of the goods, which is against the law settled by the Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Navpad Enterprises [Final Order No. 1231 to 1233/07 dated 31-10-2007 and in the decision of the Hon ble High Court of Bombay in the case of CC (Import) v. Shankar Trading Co. [2008 (224) E.L.T. 206 (Bom.)] and also in the case of M/s. Pulso Copiers [2009-TIOL-253- H.C.-P H-Cus.]. He would submit that the decision of this Tribunal in the case of M/s. Navpad Enterprises [2009 (235) E.L.T. 376 (Tri. Bang.)] was taken in the appeal by the Revenue to the Hon ble High Court of Kerala and the Hon ble High Court dismissed the appeal on 5-6-2009 [2009 (240) E.L.T. 336 (Ker.)]. It is h ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the issue becomes habitual in nature, the quantum of the fine and penalty should be commensurate with the same so as to act as a deterrent to avoid further such violations. The adjudicating authority on consideration of such factors has the prerogative to determine the quantum of fine and penalty to be imposed. However, I have observed that there are a number of similar cases which have come up before me for consideration of reduction of the redemption fine and penalty on import of the same goods. On perusal of various cases put up to me for consideration, I find that the redemption fine imposed varies from 35% to 47% of the maximum quantum imposable under Section 125 of the Customs Act. Having consideration to the facts presented herein, I ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ers in violation of the Foreign Trade Policy and misdeclaration of the value is involved. In those cases, I find that the Tribunal has put a benchmark of imposition of redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% respectively on the value of the imported goods as arrived by the Chartered Engineer. I do not find any reason for deviating from such a benchmark which has been fixed by the Tribunal and also upheld by the Hon ble High Court of Bombay and P H. 8. In view of the above, the impugned orders as regards the fine and penalty are modified to the extent in all these cases, that the appellants are required to pay redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% of the value of goods as arrived by the adjudicating authority. 9. All the appeals are ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
