9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (9) TMI 937X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in of profit is not available therefore by adopting criteria of differential duty, quantum of redemption fine reduced, thus redemption fine and penalty can only be imposed after considering the margin of profit - Further, the redemption fine and penalty imposed in the present case is highly exorbitant and is liable to be reduced. Appeal allowed in part. - C/61219-61221/2018 - 62992-62994 /2018 - Dated:- 12-9-2018 - Mr. S.S. Garg, Member (Judicial) For the Appellant(s) : Shri Saurabh Kapoor (Adv.) For the Respondent(s) : Shri G.S. Dhillon (AR) ORDER Per : S.S.Garg The appellants have filed these three appeals against the common impugned order dt 19.04.2018 passed by the Commissioner (Appeal) whereby the Comm ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the basis of the report of the Chartered Engineer the adjudicating authority rejected the declared price which as under:- B/E No Dated Declared price Redetermined Price Declared Customs Duty Enhanced Customs Duty Diff Duty 7407773 Dt. 10.11.2016 22,51,527.57 25,14,298/- 6,62,872 7,31,865 68,984 7315467 Dt. 03.11.2016 22,23,797.36 27,06,531/- 6,54,708 7,48,750 94,042 7553727 Dt. 22.11.2016 20,35,664.48 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e adjudication orders wherein the goods were ordered to be confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, instead of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 contrary to the findings of the adjudicating authority but the adjudicating authority allowed redemption under Section 125 of the Customs Act 1962, and imposed penalty on the appellant under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the appellant submitted that the imposition of redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 was arrived at without considering the fact that the goods of the appellant were subject to demmurage and detention charges as well as without arriving at the margin of profit as well as differential duty. He further submitted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r considering the facts and circumstances of his case. He further submitted that the respondent has imposed redemption fine which is highly exorbitant and the Hon ble Tribunal in the catena of judgments had reduced the same considering the fact that the same was on higher side. He further placed reliance on the case of M/s Kuber Castings Vs. Commissioner of Customs 2016 (339) ELT 264 wherein the goods having been confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act were permitted to be redeemed in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. Reliance is place in the case of K H Arid Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai as reported in 2006 (205) ELT 674 (Tri-Chennai) Abhishek Electronics Vs. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi as reported in ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... demption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant is not on a higher side and has been imposed after considering the value of the goods imported by the appellant. He further submitted that there is no need to see the margin of profit while imposing the redemption fine and penalty and only the value of the imported goods are to be considered and as per the value of the goods, the imposition of fine is in the range of about 10% which is very normal. 7. After consideration the submissions of both the parties and perusal of material on record and the various decisions relied on by both the sides, I am of the considered view that in the present case the impugned order has been passed without considering the margin of profit, which is normall ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
