9911796707
TMI Blog2015 (12) TMI 853X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cars imported from abroad and the appellant also undertook to produce the same within a period of six months from the date of import of the car which the appellant failed to comply with and therefore, the adjudicating authority came to the conclusion that the said car is liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The said finding cannot be faulted at all. However, since the ca ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ry No. 797717, dated 27-11-2002 with an option to redeem the same on payment of fine of ₹ 3.94 lakhs and also imposed penalty of ₹ 1.58 lakhs on the appellant, M/s. Fulford India Ltd., under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved of the same the appellant is before us. 3. The learned Consultant for the appellant submits that the non-production of homologation certificate ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... cle is liable to confiscation and the consequent imposition of penalty is justifiable in law. It is his contention that considering the value of the car at ₹ 15.76 lakhs approximately, imposition of redemption fine of ₹ 3.94 lakhs and penalty of ₹ 1.58 lakhs cannot be said to be excessive. Accordingly, he pleads for upholding the impugned order. 5. We have carefully considered ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 7; 1.5 lakhs (approximately 10% of the value of the car) would suffice. Similarly, a penalty of ₹ 75,000/- (approximately 5% of the value of the car) would be appropriate. Accordingly, we reduce the fine from ₹ 3.94 lakhs to ₹ 1.5 lakhs and the penalty from ₹ 1.58 lakhs to ₹ 75,000/-. 6. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms. (Dictated in Court) - - T ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
