TMI Blog1995 (3) TMI 275X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 1988 levied a fine of Rs. 25 lakhs under Section 125 of the Customs Act 1962, the Act for short, besides a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs. On this order being appeal to the Tribunal, the Tribunal by order No. 630/88, dated 8-12-1988 remanded the matter after dealing with the main contention of the appellant regarding the quantum of fine as under : The learned Advocate has argued that the redemption fine is exorbitant and that at the time of importation of the goods the margin of profit was almost NIL. He has also argued that even at the reduced rate of duty at 105% ad valorem, present margin of profit to the applicants will be nearly Rs. 800 per M.T. only. The learned Advocate has also drawn our attention to the appellants letter dated 6-6-1988 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... (2) 8-12-1988 to 10-12-1988 (3) 21-12-1988 to 29-12-1988 (4) 30-12-1988 to 11-1-1989 It was urged that while initially a fine of Rs. 25 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs [was] demanded, consequent on the remand, the appellate authority has enhanced the quantum of penalty to Rs. 40 lakhs on the ground that the goods have been cleared and were not available for confiscation. The learned Consultant submitted that the Department initially as against the order of levying a fine of Rs. 25 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs did not prefer any cross appeal and therefore the appellants questioned the correctness and sustainability in law of the fine of Rs. 25 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs by way of an appeal before the adjudicating authori ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t as pleaded by proper verification by the concerned authorities and in accordance with law. 4. We have considered the submissions made before us. The short issue before us is about the appellant s liability to penalty and the quantum thereof based on relevant criteria in accordance with law in the facts and circumstances of the case under the Act. We note that for actually working out the profit margin the duty on the warehousing bond interest paid/payable and likewise other expenses incurred should be taken note of before arriving at the quantum of the profit. We further note that the appellant s appeal remains dismissed by the Special Bench by Order No. C/91 92/92-D, dated 4-3-1992, a copy of which has been produced before us. Theref ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
