Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2019 (1) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2019 (1) TMI 80 - AT - CustomsReduction in quantum of redemption fine and penalty - confiscation could not take place - second charge of misdeclaration of value - Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 - Department could not bring any evidence which showed that the value declared in the subject bills of entry were misdeclared - Held that:- The redemption fine has been imposed on higher side. The imported goods were old and used garments and no proper market enquiry was conducted to ascertain the actual margin of profit (MOP), beside this, approximately 25% value was extra loaded without any reasonable justification and same was accepted by the importer who also incurred demurrage for more than one month. In these circumstances the redemption fine should have been of the lower amount. There is no mis-declaration of value and goods are not liable for confiscation under Section 111 (m) of the Act and appellant had accepted the enhanced value and duty was paid in excess on enhanced assessable value from declared value to USS 1.316 (when they only agreed up to USD 1.10) and the importer had paid the extra duty - enhanced assessed value is confirmed - confiscation under Section 111 (m) of the Act set aside but the confiscation under Section 111 (d) of the Act is upheld. Imposition of penalty - Held that:- Since the goods were liable to confiscation only under Section 111(d) and have been confiscated, therefore imposition of penalty is sustainable in law - However, while imposing personal penalty the adjudicating authority observed in its OIO that in past in identical cases penalty equivalent to 10% was imposed and he imposed penalty of 11% giving no justification for such variation. The penalty should not be imposed in such a fashion but circumstances of each case and role of importer should be examined case to case basis before imposing personal penalty. Appeal allowed in part.
|