9911796707
TMI Blog2016 (3) TMI 1139X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be rebutted. The Commissioner (Appeals) with proper application of mind, considering all the aspects taken lenient view and accordingly reduced the redemption fine and penalties - there is no infirmity in the impugned order - appeal dismissed - decided against appellant. - APPEAL No. C/87829/14 - Order No.A/88265/16/SMB - Dated:- 4-3-2016 - Mr Ramesh Nair, Member (Judicial) Shri. S. Ravi, Advocate for the Appellants Shri. Kamal Puggal, Asstt. Commissioner(A.R.) for the Respondent Per : Ramesh Nair This appeal is directed against Order-in- Appeal No. 1346(DRAWBACK) /2014(JNCH) /EXP-57 dated 26/3/2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs(Appeals), Mumbai-II, whereby Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) upheld the Order in Origi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... wback claimed and confiscated the goods with option to redeem the same for taking goods back to town on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 3.50 lakhs under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962, a penalty of ₹ 1.50 lakhs was also imposed upon the appellant under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the Order-in-Original, appellant filed appeal before the Commissioner(Appeals) for waiver of redemption fine and penalties. Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) vide impugned order considering facts and submissions made by the appellant reduced the redemption fine from ₹ 3.50 Lakhs to ₹ 2.65 lakhs and penalty of ₹ 1.50 lakhs to ₹ 1 lakh. Being aggrieved by the impunged order, appellant is before me for waiver of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tion of principles of natural justice but the fact that the goods were mis-declared could not be rebutted. The Commissioner (Appeals) with proper application of mind, considering all the aspects taken lenient view and accordingly reduced the redemption fine and penalties. The findings of the Ld. Commissioner(Appeals) is reproduced below: 6. I have gone through the impugned order and the submissions of the appellant. The appellant has already paid the fine and penalty. Accordingly, I proceed to decide the case on merit. 7. I find that the appellant filed a Shipping Bill No. 4643329 dated 25.03.2013 for export of 2710.98 sq ft of Goat Burnished Upper Finished Leather having declared FOB value of ₹ 2643779.32 under duty drawback ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pellant under Section 114(i) of the Customs Act, 1962. 8. I have gone through various judicial pronouncements. I find that Hon ble CESTAT in Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin Vs. Sai Copiers [2008(226) ELT 486] has reduced the amount of penalty and redemption fine to 5% and 15% of the value of the goods. Hon ble CESTAT in the case of Susmi Impex Vs. Commissioner of Customs[2008(228) ELT 444] has reduced the redemption fine imposed from 25% to 15% of the enhanced value. Hon ble Tribunal in Vikas Chandra Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2003(158) ELT 316(Tri. Chennai), has held that only offending goods are liable for confiscation and not the entire consignment. Hon ble CESTAT in the case of Comptech Electronics Pvt Ltd Vs. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... I uphold the Order-in-Original No. 08/2013 dated 12.06.2013 passed by the Adjudicating authority. However, I reduce the Redemption fine imposed on the appellant under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 from ₹ 3,50,000/- to ₹ 2,65,000/- and penalty from ₹ 1,50,000/- to ₹ 1,00,000/-. With the said modification, the appeal No. 859/2013 JNCH, is disposed off accordingly. From the above findings of the impugned order, it is clear that there is no infirmity in the impugned order, therefore it does not require any interference. Accordingly, I am in complete agreement with the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) therefore upheld the impugned order and dismiss the appeal. (Operative order pronounced in court) - - ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
