9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... an be made in lieu of redemption fine, and learned Commissioner (Appeals) has placed his reliance heavily on it but erroneously understood that in the said judgment there was confirmation of confiscation and redemption fine. In the instant case, as could be seen from the case record, Appellant had filed Bill of Entry on the basis of the item description mentioned by the supplier in the import document and had agreed to pay duty on the enhanced value after the same was found to be item of different size. Learned Commissioner (Appeals) had observed in unequivable terms that the same importer i.e. Appellant had cleared some goods at or around the same time at higher rate for which deliberate undervaluation or mis-declaration to avoid duty ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nwards but on examination by the Expert, at the instance of Customs Official, he found presence of SS-12 size Beads in the sample examined by him, value of which is more than the declared size of SS-19 onwards. Matter was adjudicated upon and the adjudicating authority had held that the goods were liable for confiscation under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962. He also re-determined the value under Rule 5 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007, appropriated the Customs duty paid by and recovered from the importer and allowed redemption of imported goods under Section 125 of the Customs Act against payment of fine of ₹ 20,00,000/- as well as imposed penalty of ₹ 14,00,000/- on the Proprietor of the firm. 3. Being aggrieved by ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Mutual Fund reported in 2006 (5) SCC 361, by holding that establishment of mens rea is not essential for imposing penalty for breach of Civil Obligations . However, he reduced the fine and penalty amount substantially by holding that it should be commensurate with the offence committed by the Appellant and not to be harsh or excessively disproportionate. The legality of confirmation of fine and penalty is only assailed in this appeal. 4. During the course of argument learned Counsel for the Appellant Mr. N.D. George submitted that in view of the findings of the Commissioner (Appeals) referred above and in the absence of margin of profit being worked-out so as to impose fine to wipe-out the margin of profit basing on Board s formula imp ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Commissioner (Appeals) had rightly confirmed fine and penalty while reducing its quantum, so as to make it commensurate to the offence committed that needs no intervention by this Tribunal. 6. I have heard submissions from both the sides. It would not be inappropriate to mention here that the Appellant s case is squarely covered by the judgment of Hon'ble Madras High Court in Commissioner of Customs (Sea), Chennai-I Vs. M.R. Associates cited supra wherein it was clearly held that enhancement of value based on voluntary statement concerning acceptance of value, may be for early clearance of goods, would not invoke penal provisions nor confiscation of goods can be made in lieu of redemption fine, and learned Commissioner (Appeals) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
