9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (9) TMI 937X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ], wherein this Tribunal has held that 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% - Against the confirmed duties and the penalties the Redem ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. 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), wherein this Tribunal has observed as under : 4. We find that proceedings initiated against most of the imports commenced even before the filing of bills of entry. In these circumstances, invoki ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... emand 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 not only bereft of validity but also inconsistent with the remand order. The Tribunal, in its remand order, had allowed determination of value of misdeclared goods. That part of the remand order ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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. Against the confirmed duties and the penalties the Redemption Fine imposed by the Adjudicating Authority, the Respondent has not filed any appeals. 6. Following the above cited decision of this Tribunal, we hold that the redemption fine and pen ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
