9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (12) TMI 1154X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the respondent Per: M.V. Ravindran This appeal is directed against Order-in-Original No. 142/2005/CAC /CC(I)/AKP dated 20.12.2005. 2. Heard both sides and perused the records. 3. The issue involved in this case is regarding the redemption fine and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority on the irregular importation of marble slabs. 4. There is no dispute as to the fact that there was re ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... etermined the value and importer appellant has discharged the customs duty accordingly. We agree with the finding of the adjudicating authority that the imported consignment of marble is liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 due to misdeclaration of the value. However, we do not agree with the redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority in lieu of confiscation ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ind the consistent view of Tribunal, we hold that penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority of Rs. 10 lakhs is excessive and accordingly, we reduce the same to Rs. 5,00,000/- (Rupees five lakhs only) of the combined CIF value of Rs. 47 lakhs. 6. Subject to the modification as indicated hereinabove, impugned order is upheld and the appeal is disposed of accordingly, with consequential relief, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
