Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2015 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2015 (2) TMI 868 - CESTAT MUMBAIConfiscation of Hydrogenated Vegetable oil - Non compliance with the provisions of Prevention of Food Adulteration Act, 1954 - Imposition of redemption fine and penalty - Held that:- The liability of the goods to confiscation is not disputed inasmuch as the goods under importation did not meet with the requirements of PFA Act and consequently became prohibited goods under Section 2 (33) of the Customs Act and became liable to confiscation under Section 111 9d). The total value of the goods imported is ₹ 93.3 lakhs. The fine of ₹ 7.5 lakhs imposed works out to 8% of the value of the goods. Normally fine is imposed to take way the profit margin. In the present case when the goods are ordered to be re-exported, the question of sale of the goods and making a profit would not arise and therefore, the redemption fine of ₹ 7.5 lakhs imposed is on the higher side. Considering the demurrage and other charges incurred by the appellant, I reduce the fine from ₹ 7.5 lakhs to ₹ 3.75 lakhs. As regards the penalty of ₹ 50,000/-, imposed under section 112(a), no mens rea required to be established for imposition of such penalty and the penalty imposed cannot be said to be harsh or unreasonable. Therefore, I do not interfere with the penalty imposed. To sum up, the redemption fine is reduced to ₹ 3.75 lakhs. But for the above modification, the impugned order is upheld. - Decided partly in favour of assessee.
|