9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (12) TMI 574X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... NER 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 any appeals. Following the cited decision of this Tribunal, it is held that the r ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 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 parties 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, invoking of Section 111(m) which applies to 111(m) any goods which do not correspond in respect of value or in any other particular with the en ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... g 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 mis-declared goods. That part of the remand order appears impossible to comply with ex post facto in the light of the finding that 4. From the examination report (only one consign ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ertainment 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 penalty imposed on the respondents by the adjudicating authority is sufficient to meet the end of justice. Therefore, the redemption ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
