9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (2) TMI 874X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ES VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (IMPORTS) MUMBAI [ 2018 (11) TMI 625 - CESTAT MUMBAI] , wherein this Tribunal has observed 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. Against the confirmed duties and the penalties the Redemption Fine imposed by the Adjudicating Authority, the Respondents have not filed any Appeals. The redemption fine and penalty imposed on the Respondents by the adjudicating authority is sufficient to meet the end of justice. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s 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 entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declaration made under Section 77 in respect thereof or in the case of goods ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er 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 consignment was subjected to 100% examination on first check basis), which was already on record it appeared that imports in these cases were ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hold 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 Respondents have 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 fine and penalty confirmed by the adjudicating authority are upheld. 7. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
