Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2011 (2) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2011 (2) TMI 770 - AT - CustomsConfiscation of the fabrics - ST and SCPL joined together and inflated the value in the ARE-4 only and also in the shipping bill - It becomes relevant that ST and SCPL are sister concerns and are related to each other - Held that the supply by ST to SCPL is deemed export, the value declared by ST to SCPL also becomes relevant since it is treated as export and in view of the inflation of value by ST which automatically result in inflation of value by SCPL, the conclusion of the Commissioner that the goods are liable to confiscation since the same did not correspond with the value declared has to be upheld. Redemption fine - the real value of the goods was Rs.12 lakhs, the redemption fine imposed appears to be very high and needs to be reconsidered - Further, unfortunately the quantum of benefit that was available to the appellants because of inflation of value has not been discussed anywhere nor the appellants have chosen to indicate it - Therefore there is a need to reduce the redemption fine. As regards penalty on Shri S.T. Aorora, the facts of the case and the evidences gathered clearly show that he was the mastermind behind the whole operation - Therefore penalty has been rightly imposed on him - But once again, the penalty has to be proportionate to the offence committed and the fact that FOB value has been realized and the exact quantum of financial benefit that would have been derived has not been brought on record would result in a situation where have to take into account the value of the fabrics declared and determine the penalty on that basis - Another factor that is required to be taken into account is that penalty has also been imposed on SCPL. Further penalty on SCPL also is required to be considered in relation to the value of the goods and the benefits - Having regard to the facts and circumstances, the nature of offence and the fact that unit is located in SEZ etc. consider it appropriate that reduction in fine penalty etc. is warranted. As regards Shri Shyamsunder Satyal, as submitted he was only an employee and no evidence has been brought out to show that he was part of the operation and had deliberately involved himself - The facts brought out show that he was only performing functions which an employee would perform - Thus, the penalty is being imposed on the M.D of the company SCPL and ST, do not consider that penalty has to be imposed on Shri Shyamsunder Satyal.
|