9911796707
TMI Blog2003 (7) TMI 75X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... sal of the orders passed by the Tribunal in the case of Stonemann Marble Industries and Jai Bhagwati Impex Pvt. Ltd., it is seen that the Tribunal has reduced the redemption fine and penalty by taking into account the margin of profits and the demurrage incurred by the importers of the said consignments. It is pertinent to note that the Tribunal in similar circumstances have taken a uniform view to restrict the redemption fine to 20% of the CIF value and penalty to 5% of the CIF value. Thus, it is evident that the decision of the Tribunal is essentially based on finding of fact. The Tribunal has reduced the redemption fine and penalty by taking into account its earlier decision as well as the margin profit and the amount of demurrage incurr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Customs Tariff Heading 2515.12. The Commissioner of Customs found that the goods imported were in violation of the import policy and by the Order-in-Original dated 31-8-2001 and 13-9-2001, the Commissioner confiscated the goods imported by the Respondent under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Commissioner of Customs gave an option to the Respondents to redeem the goods on payment of fine and penalty as more particularly set out in the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai. 3. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the Respondents filed appeals before the CEGAT, Mumbai and by a common order dated 16-4-2002, the CEGAT, Mumbai reduced the fine approximately to 20% of CIF value determined and reduced th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he facts of the case?" 4. Mr. Desai, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Applicant submitted that the Tribunal neither in the present case nor in its earlier decision which has been relied upon in the present case given any reasons for reducing the redemption fine and penalty. He submitted that the Tribunal blindly followed its decision in the case of the Stonemann Marble Industries's and even the said decision does not lay down any principles or ratio as to how and under what circumstances and to what extent the redemption fine and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority can be reduced. He submitted that the summary dismissal of the Special Leave Petition filed by the Revenue against similar decision of the Tr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... hought and only with a view to delay the refund amount due to the Respondents on account of reduction in redemption fine and penalty. He submitted that as the Customs authorities failed to implement the order of the Tribunal, the respondents were compelled to file a Writ Petition bearing Nos. 4124 of 2002 in this Court. He submitted that the issues raised in the present application are squarely covered by the various decisions of the Tribunal and the Apex Court and, therefore, the Reference Applications filed by the Revenue are liable to be dismissed and the Respondents must be granted refund of the redemption fine and penalty due to them as per the order of the Tribunal as has been done in the case of other importers. 6. Having heard the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
