TMI Blog2007 (10) TMI 490X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... d by the adjudicating authority to Rs. 25,000/- and the penalty of Rs. 1 lac to Rs. 10,000/-. 2. The facts are not in dispute. Both the authorities below have concurrently found that, the imported goods (20936 kgs. of old and used worm clothings) were declared to be of the value of Rs. 3,11,404.80, but their assessable value was Rs. 5,96,676/-. The said assessable value was acceptable to the importer. It has also not been contested that the goods were imported without the required licence/permission. The import of the goods was not allowed without the required licence/permission. The goods were imported in contravention of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09. The importer had accepted the assessable value proposed by the Appraising Officer. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ot be arbitrarily exercised in either direction. There are already guidelines incorporated in the provisions of Section 125(1) of the Customs Act, 1962, to the effect that the redemption fine shall not exceed the market price of the goods confiscated, less, in the case of the imported goods, the duty chargeable thereon. In the context of this provision, a Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jagson International Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, reported in 2006 (199) E.L.T. 553 (T-Del), has held that, there would be justification for imposing fine in lieu of confiscation which is to the extent of market price of the goods confiscated, in the following terms : 11.1 Section 125 of the said Act provides for option to pay fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he market value of the offending goods, but no enquiry would be necessary where the fine to be imposed is equivalent to the CIF value of the goods, as the market value is normally more than the CIF value of the goods plus duty. 6.1 The value of the goods assessed at Rs. 5,96,676/- was never challenged and was, in fact, accepted by the importer. If that be so, the redemption fine of Rs. 2 lacs, as imposed by the adjudicating authority, was far below the market value of the goods. There is no valid reason given by the Commissioner (Appeals), as to why has he chosen to interfere with such a lenient order of imposition of redemption fine passed by the adjudicating authority. The interference by the Appellate Authority would not be warranted ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... out obtaining a valid licence/permission from the competent authority. Therefore, the penalty could have been imposed up to the value of the goods which was Rs. 5,96,676/-. Even if the goods were to be treated as other than prohibited goods covered by clause (ii) of Section 112 of the said Act, penalty could have extended up to the duty sought to be evaded, which in the present case was Rs. 2,85,271/-. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, the penalty of Rs. 1 lac imposed by the adjudicating authority could have been treated as unjustified, much less harsh. 8. For the foregoing reasons, the order of the Appellate Commissioner interfering with the redemption fine and penalty as imposed by the adjudicating authority has been arbitraril ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
