9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (9) TMI 468X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... S 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 imposed on the respondents by the appellate authority is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the redemption fine and penalty confirmed by the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ame 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 under transhipment, with the declaration for transhipment referred to in the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 54; does not appear ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s. 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 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 ofa mixed lot consisting of used garments and also 40% to 50% mutilated single cut garments. xxxx 20. Before proceeding further it is pertinent here to s ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the ascertained value and penalty to 5%. 5. Against the confirmed duties and the Redemption Fine and penalty imposed by the Adjudicating Authority, the Respondent had not filed any appeal, nor have they filed any appeal against the order of the Ld. Appellate authority. 6. Following the above cited decision of this Tribunal, we hold that the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the respondents by the appellate authority is sufficient to meet the ends of justice. Therefore, the redemption fine and penalty confirmed by the appellate authority are upheld. 7. Consequently, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order and the same is upheld. 8. The appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in the open Court.) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
