9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (3) TMI 634X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... imposing a Redemption Fine of Rs.13,600/- and penalty of Rs.10,000/-. There are force in the argument of the Learned Advocate that the Commissioner (Appeals) has exceeded the brief available to him and has not followed the correct procedure while enhancing the Redemption Fine and the penalty. The First Proviso to Section 128A(3) of the Customs Act clearly states that in case if any enhancement of the penalty or fine is being considered by the Commissioner (Appeals), he is required to give a proper notice to the importer/assessee. This would enable the assessee to put forth their arguments in defense of their case. In this case, this procedure was not adopted, which means that principles of natural justice have not been fulfilled. Conclu ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... held that the proposed fine and penalty are not commensurate with the offence caused by the importer. Accordingly he set aside the Redemption fine and penalty imposed under the OIO and revised the same to the extent of 10% of the value of the goods as Redemption Fine and penalty of 5% of the value of the goods. Being aggrieved, the appellant is before the Tribunal. 4. The Learned Advocate, appearing on behalf of the appellant, submits that the appellant was not aware of the Rule towards EPR. They were also under the impression that for their product, this certificate was not required to be given. Subsequently, after pointing out by the Department after the import of the goods, they have submitted the same. 5. He submits that this should b ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view and impose low the Redemption Fine and penalty. He justifies the enhanced Redemption Fine and penalty imposed by the Commissioner (Appeals). 8. Heard both sides perused the appeal papers and the synopsis submitted by the Learned Advocate. I find that the very fact as to whether the appellant is required to file EPR in case of the goods imported by them is under question. E-waste Rules were implemented from 2016 and the appellant has imported in 2017. Probably, they were not even aware that they are required to file the same. The Learned Advocates submits that the imported goods do not require this condition to be fulfilled. However, on being pointed out, they have subsequently filed the EPR. Therefore, this has to be taken only as a m ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
