9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 364X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... SHNA EXPORT CORPORATION, PRECISION IMPEX, BMC SPINNERS PVT. LTD., SHIVAM TRADERS, LEELA WOOLEN MILLS, M.U. TEXTILES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS) MUMBAI [ 2018 (11) TMI 625 - CESTAT MUMBAI ], wherein this Tribunal has observed the paucity of evidence and the negligible scope for ascertainment at this stage deters us from doing so. In the light of the admitted failure to comply with the licensing requirements, we uphold the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962. However, it is our opinion that the ends of justice would be served by reducing the redemption fine to 10% of the ascertained value and penalty to 5%. The redemption fine and penalty as reduced by the Ld.Commissioner(Appeals) is suffi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... goods could not be confiscated on the second charge of misdeclaration of value under section 111 (m) of the Customs Act, 1962 as the department could not bring any evidence which showed that the value declared in the subject bills of entry were misdeclared thus leaving non-possession of a valid license as the only offense to render the goods fit for confiscation under section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962. 2.3 Against the said orders, the Revenue is before us for enhancement of redemption fine and penalty. 3. Heard the Learned AR and perused the records. 4. We find that this issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Venus Traders Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai reported in 2019 (365) ELT 958 (Tri.-Mumbai), wherei ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he statute, permitted to exceed the market price of the goods and the undertaking of a survey is not improper. However, such a survey, more than a decade after the import and, that too, after remand was ordered by the Tribunal, does not appear to the intent of the decision of the Tribunal. The remand order is specific in directing that the margin of profit, ascertained for computation of the fine, should be made known to the appellant. It is, therefore, the manner in which the original authority had, in the first instance, ascertained the margin of profit that was required to be supplied to the appellants. The original authority has patently failed to do so and has tried to rectify the deficiency of such ascertainment by a process that is n ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rious issues and submissions made and the failure of the original authority to comply with the direction in remand to disclose the margin of profit that prompted the fine and penalty, the matter would normally have to be remitted back by another remand order. However, the paucity of evidence and the negligible scope for ascertainment at this stage deters us from doing so. In the light of the admitted failure to comply with the licensing requirements, we uphold the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962. However, it is our opinion that the ends of justice would be served by reducing the redemption fine to 10% of the ascertained value and penalty to 5%. 5. Following the above cited decision of this Tribunal, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
