9911796707
TMI Blog2022 (4) TMI 378X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Factual backdrop of the case, in a nutshell, is that Appellant M/s. Neno Crystal, an importer, filed Bill of Entry No. 2962644 dated 12.08.2013 for clearance of Chatons (Beads) of size SS-19 onwards 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (297) ELT 504 (Mad.) in the case of Commissioner of Customs (Sea), Chennai-I Vs. M.R. Associates and that of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in the case of Chariman SEBI Vs. Sri Ram 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sioner (Appeals)'s order that mens rea is not a precondition for imposing penalty for breach of "Civil Obligations" and fine is imposed to wipe out the margin of profit and therefore 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 o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tal action. Therefore, it cannot be said that appellant had made a tie or contract for payment of higher value, so as to make him liable for violation of "Civil Obligations" for the purpose of imposing penalty on him and it has been settled through judicial precedent that voluntarily acceptance of higher value and willingness to pay the duty at the enhanced rate would exempt the Appellant from liability of confiscation and redemption fine [Commissioner of Customs (Sea) judgment, cited supra]. Hence the order. ORDER 7. The appeal is allowed and Order-in-Appeal No. MUM-CUSTMAMP-APP-507/17-18 dated 14.09.2017 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai Zone-III order to the extent of confirming reduced fine for confiscation and p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
