9911796707
TMI Blog2013 (8) TMI 470X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he circumstances of the case and reducing penalty to 50% of the duty element would be justified - imposition of huge fine shall cause undue hardship to the appellant and the penalty to the extent of duty element shall also be harsh - appeal decided partly in favour of assessee. - Apeal Nos. 813 to 815 of 2008 - FINAL ORDER NO. 56368-56370/2013 - Dated:- 2-5-2013 - Shri D.N. Panda and Shri Manmohan Singh, JJ. For the Respondent: Shri V.P. Batra, A.R. JUDGEMENT Per D.N. Panda When the appellant imported a consignment containing two types of goods namely Inula racemosa and Chinese Ginseng under Bill of Entry No. 658914 dated 4.1.2008, those were found to be mis-declared. As per D.R.I., the goods were found to be Saussu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Revenue recalculated the value of goods in a table under para 46 of adjudication order as under: Srl. No. Description of goods Quantity Value declared By the importer (Rs.) CIF Value 1. Saussurea lappa 22400 kgs. 4,72,898.25 10,99,644 @ US $1.235 per kg. 2. Salam Panja 400 kgs. 29,231.39 Rs. 44520 @ US$ 2.8 per kg. With the aforesaid conclusion, Revenue confiscated the goods granting an option to M/s. Kartik Traders to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs. 1 lakh. Appropriate duty was directed to be determined and penal consequences followed as stated ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the show cause notice especially letters dated 18.02.2008 and 21.02.2008 of the Joint Director, Wildlife Crime Control Bureau, as referred to in paras 24 and 25 of adjudication order and on payment of customs duty leviable thereon. (iii) Appraising officers were directed to appraise the duty liability on the basis of re-determined assessable value as above and communicate the same to the importer immediately. The concerned appraising officer was also directed to compute the amount of interest payable in terms of the provisions of section 28AB of the Act ibid and communicate the same to the importer. The amount of duty and interest already paid by the importer in this case was ordered to be appropriated towards the amount of duty and inter ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... st appellant. 4. Against valuation aspect it was submitted that contemporaneous evidence relied by Revenue are not representative and are not comparable. To reduce the dispute the appellant had opted to follow the process of Section 28(1A) of Customs Act, 1962, and had deposited duty with 25% of duty element towards penalty. If the Tribunal does not grant such concession the appellant shall choose to abandon the goods under section 23 of Customs Act, 1962. 5. Revenue per contra supports the adjudication and says that both the goods imported were restricted one. When the goods were mis-declared as to the description and value, proper adjudication order was passed with consequences as ordered thereunder. Shri Saket Aggarwal and Shri Prave ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11.9.2008 by DGFT officials. Therefore, imposition of huge fine of Rs. 1 lakhs shall cause undue hardship to the appellant and the penalty to the extent of duty element shall also be harsh. It was specifically submitted that the appellant chooses to reduce the dispute without further litigation as has been submitted by learned Counsel. 10. To bring amity to the situation, we consider that imposition of fine of Rs. 25,000/- may not be improper in the fitness of the circumstances of the case and reducing penalty to 50% of the duty element would be justified. Therefore, appeal No. C/813/2008 stands disposed in above terms. 11. So far as appeal Nos. 814 815/2008 are concerned, those relates to penalty of Rs. 40,000/- each on Shri Saket A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
