9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (2) TMI 868X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tation did not meet with the requirements of PFA Act and consequently became prohibited goods under Section 2 (33) of the Customs Act and became liable to confiscation under Section 111 9d). The total value of the goods imported is ₹ 93.3 lakhs. The fine of ₹ 7.5 lakhs imposed works out to 8% of the value of the goods. Normally fine is imposed to take way the profit margin. In the pres ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... /06 - - - Dated:- 7-11-2014 - Mr P R Chandrasekharan, J. For the Appellant : Ms Lakshmi Menon, Adv. For the Respondent : Shri S Nathan, Dy Comm (AR) JUDGEMENT Per: P R Chandrasekharan: 1. The appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 57/2006 dated 05/05/2006 passed by Commissioner of Customs (Import), Nhava Sheva. Vide the impugned order, the learned adjudicating a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ion of the goods. The plea is that this is only a one off transaction and there was no intention on the part of the appellant to violate any provisions of law. Imposition of fine of ₹ 7.5 lakhs and penalty of ₹ 50,000/- is not warranted and therefore, it is prayed that fine and penalty be set aside or reduced substantially. 3. The learned Additional Commissioner (AR) appearing for t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7.5 lakhs imposed is on the higher side. Considering the demurrage and other charges incurred by the appellant, I reduce the fine from ₹ 7.5 lakhs to ₹ 3.75 lakhs. As regards the penalty of ₹ 50,000/-, imposed under section 112(a), no mens rea required to be established for imposition of such penalty and the penalty imposed cannot be said to be harsh or unreasonable. Therefore, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
