9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 465X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S 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%. Against the confirmed duties and the penalties the Redemption Fine imposed by the Adjudicating Authority, the Respondent has not filed a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t and is restricted item for import as per Para 2.17 of Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014, read with ITC HS Classification of import and export items 2009-2014. Import of goods under Tariff Item No.63090000 is restricted and their import is allowed only against the valid specific license. 4.2 The Adjudicating Authority has imposed redemption fine and penalty at the rate of 19.5% 7.8% of the assessed value respectively. In some of the cases where goods are not available, no redemption fine is imposed. 4.3 Against the said orders, the Revenue is before us for enhancement of redemption fine and penalty. 5. Heard the Learned AR and perused the records. 6. We find that this issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Venus Trade ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne in lieu imposed under Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962. The redemption fine is not, in terms of the 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 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... market survey, there is no serious resistance to the ascertained value. 7. Considering the various 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 th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
