9911796707
TMI Blog2006 (6) TMI 18X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt rejected this value and proposed to enhance it to Singapore Dollar 59,616. Subsequently, the goods were got examined by a Chartered Engineer, who estimated the value of the machines at Singapore Dollar 65, 577. Taking the view that the machines were not capital goods and that their description and value had been misdeclared by the importer, the department proposed to confiscate the same under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act as also to impose penalty on the importer under Section 112 of the Act. The assessable value of the goods was also proposed to be enhanced as above. These proposals were upheld by the original authority, which fixed the assessable value of the goods at Rs. 17,57,463/- under Rule 8 of the Customs Valuation Rules, 198 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he AP High Court in the appeal filed by the department against the Tribunal's decision in Atul Commodities (supra) was also considered by the Kerala High Court. In view of the Kerala High Court's decision in Atul Commodities, Id SDR prays for restoring the order passed by the original authority. 3. Ld. Counsel for the respondents has placed on record the Tribunal's Larger Bench decision and decisions rendered by the regular Bench at Chennai by following the above decision. It is also submitted that, in any case, the quanta of fine and penalty imposed by the original authority are unreasonably high. It is pointed out that, in the determination of fine and penalty, it should be borne in mind that the goods were imported at a time when it wa ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m of redemption fine fixed by the original authority. The same contention has been raised in respect of penalty as well. While conceding that there is no appeal of the respondents, ld. counsel submits that it is still open to the Tribunal to sit in judgment over the correctness or otherwise of the quanta of fine and penalty. I must agree with this argument. Now that the appellate Commissioner's order setting aside confiscation (with RF) and penalty has been held liable to be set aside, a question would legitimately arise as to what should be the appropriate quanta of fine and penalty. There is an element of discretion in the determination of these factors. The original authority does not seem to have exercised this discretion on sound princ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
