9911796707
TMI Blog2014 (3) TMI 524X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ld the imposition of penalty and redemption fine by the original adjudicating authority. 2. In this case, it is seen that the appellant has imported 980 pieces of old and used monitors 17" from Germany, The goods were subjected to examination under first check procedure to ascertain physical condition of the goods and its relation to the declared value of the goods. the basis of chartered engineer's certificate, the goods were found old and used CRT monitors size 17". The year of manufacturer of these monitors was between 1999-2004 and the market value of the said goods was found to be Rs.8,23,900/-. On the basis of the value proposed by the chartered engineer, the value of the goods were enhanced to Rs.6,91,711/- for assessment purpose. It was also noticed that since these old and used items required a licence under foreign trade policy 2004-2009 and no licence was produced by the appellant and the goods were liable for confiscation, redemption fine and penalty. The adjudicating authority has confiscated the old and used CRT monitors size 17" valued at Rs.6,91,711/- under section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, an option was given to redeem the same on payment of rede ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... thority was, therefore, leaning on the lenient side. The Appellate Commissioner has, therefore, arbitrarily inferred with the order of the adjudicating authority imposing redemption fine of Rs. 2 lacs in respect of the goods assessed at Rs. 5,96,676/- and its order cannot be sustained. 7. Penalty of Rs. 1 lac was imposed by the adjudicating authority after reaching a finding that, the importer had despite having the knowledge that the goods imported were restricted under the Policy, imported them without the required licence/permission. He has given valid reasons, in paragraph 11 of his order, for imposing the penalty of Rs. 1 lac under Section 112 of the said Act. Penalty not exceeding the value of the goods could be imposed in the case of the goods in respect of which any prohibition is in force under the said Act or any other law for the time being in force. In the present case, the goods were imported against the Foreign Trade Policy under which they were restricted goods and it could not have been imported without obtaining a valid licence/permission from the competent authority. Therefore, the penalty could have been imposed up to the value of the goods which was Rs. 5,9 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... f redemption fine and penalty. As the facts stand detailed in the proposed order of learned Member (Technical), I do not repeat the same so as to avoid the redundancy. 11. The appellants have taken a strong objection to the fact that lower authorities have relied upon the Chartered Engineers certificate and some market inquiries which are conducted at their back and no copy of the Chartered Engineer's report was given to them. Learned Member (Technical) has not accepted the above stand of the appellant on the ground that personal hearing was granted to the appellant by Commissioner (Appeals). However, I find that the appellants grievance is non-supply of result of market inquiry and copy of Chartered Engineers certificate and not of personal hearing before Commissioner (Appeals). As there is nothing on record to show that the appellants were associated with the market inquiry and the result of the same was given to the appellants along with a copy of Chartered Engineers certificate, I feel constrained to accept the above submission of the appellant. 12. In any case and in any view of the matter, the question required to be decided is as to whether such market inquiries or the C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed photocopier machines on the basis of Chartered Engineers certificate was set aside. 14. It is further observed in the order of my learned brother that as the appellant had not contested the enhanced value of the goods and have agreed to pay the duty on the same, they are stopped from contesting the same, I do not agree with the said reasoning of the adjudicating authority. As explained by the -learned advocate, such acceptance for payment of duty on the enhanced value was with a purpose to get the goods cleared and to avoid detention and demurrage charges. The fact that the appellant has challenged such enhancement before the higher appellate forum is itself indicative of the appellants non-acceptance of the enhanced value. Tribunal in the case of Digitech Photocopier has observed that appellants accepted the enhancement of the value because they have already incurred huge detention and demurrage charges and wanted to avoid further burden. Similarly, in the case of Bhawana Spinning Mills, it was observed that payment of duty at the enhanced rate under protest does not amount to acceptance of the enhanced value. Merely because the appellants waived the issuance of show cause no ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ound to follow the binding precedent and further observed that the CESTAT as a judicial body, must realize the importance of doctrine of precedent as in our legal system. Deference to judgments of the Supreme Court is a matter of constitutional principle. Equally unless Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal have due deference and regard for decisions rendered by the Tribunal, the elements of certainty and consistency in the judicial process which lie at the heart of judicial functioning would be seriously disrupted. In terms of said decision of the Bombay High Court, the precedent decisions of the Coordinate Benches have to be given due respect and are required to be followed unless the same are specifically deviated from by giving suitable reasoning. In those cases also, it is seen that matter needs to be referred to Larger Bench for consideration of the disputed legal issues. Inasmuch as in the present case, all the Coordinate Benches have taken a categorical view of imposition of redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% of the value of imported goods, I find no justification to take a different view. It may not be out of place to mention here in some of the cases, the importers wer ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
