Home Case Index All Cases Customs Customs + AT Customs - 2022 (8) TMI AT This
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2022 (8) TMI 722 - AT - CustomsPower of Customs (appeals) in reducing the value - Valuation of imported goods - Used tyres - rejection of declared value - Confiscation - redemption fine - penalty - HELD THAT:- It is settled position in law that it is the discretion of the authority deciding to determine the quantum and fine and penalty as per the gravity of the offence involved. It is not even the case that Commissioner (Appeals) has exonerated completely the respondent. The total offence which is as per the order of the Assistant Commissioner, is about 10% of under valuation. Against the declared value of US$ 30429 (Rs 14,19,513/-), Revenue has determined the loaded value to U$ 33846.40 (Rs 15,78,935/- CIF). The total case which involves undervaluation is not more than 10% of the value of the goods under importation. Thus in the present case the redemption fine as determined by the Commissioner (Appeal) on the basis of the CESTAT Bangalore Bench order is above 10% in the case of HT. COMPANY VERSUS COMMISSIONER OF CUS., HYDERABAD [2006 (11) TMI 384 - CESTAT, BANGALORE] for fixing the fine and redemption fine as per the percentage indicated in that order, which is higher than what has been upheld by the Hon’ble High Court - there are no merits in the said submissions of the revenue. There are no merits in the appeal filed by Revenue challenging the order of Commissioner (Appeals) whereby he has reduced the redemption fine equivalent to 10% of undervaluation and which is in accordance with the order of Bangalore CESTAT - From the provisions of Section 128 and 128 A of the Customs Act, 1962, it is quite evident that there is sufficient power vested in the Commissioner (Appeal) to confirm, modify or annul any decision or order appealed against. Any order used in the section 128 and 128A, is wide enough to include the orders passed in respect of the imposition of penalty on the aggrieved person. Thus the order of reducing the penalty by Commissioner (Appeal) and aligning the same with the percentage of penalty as determined by the Bangalore Bench cannot be faulted with. The appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the impugned order of Commissioner (Appeals) is upheld.
|