TMI Blog2008 (5) TMI 570X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ed against the appellant for violation of import policy and also for undervaluation. The Original Authority held that the imported car was liable for confiscation under the Customs Act. Further, he enhanced the value declared by the appellant. The appellant approached the Commissioner (Appeals), he passed an order in appeal 32/2006 dated 23-2-2006. In the said order the Commissioner (Appeals) while upholding the enhancement of value reduced the fine and penalty to Rs. 15,00,000/- and Rs. 4,00,000/. The appellants were aggrieved over the impugned order of the Commissioner Appeals. Hence, they approached this Tribunal for relief. This Tribunal in the Final Order dated 21-7-2006 directed the Revenue to accept the invoice value and allowed the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r clarification. Consequently, the Commissioner has filed the miscellaneous application. 5. It has been stated by the Revenue that the importer did not plead before Commissioner or before Tribunal for total waiver of fine. His plea was for modification of quantum of the fine and penalty stating it as high. This is evident from Para 9 of the appeal memorandum filed by the importer before the Tribunal. This was also recorded in Para 4(iii) of the Final Order of the Tribunal. Further, the Tribunal in the Final Order did not set aside the confiscation ordered by the lower authority. Even the quantum of fine and penalty as modified by the Commissioner appeals was not disturbed. However, the importer attempted to interpret that since the appeal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... disturb the finding and orders of the lower authority regarding fine and penalty is unsustainable. Further, it is submitted that the re-opening the issue of fine and penalty which was settled by the Hon ble High Court of Kerala and Hon ble Supreme Court is highly unwarranted. 7. On a very careful consideration of the issue, we find that the Tribunal in the final order dealt with only valuation of the car. There is no finding with regard to fine and penalty even though the appellant sought relief in respect of fine and penalty. As there is no finding with regard to fine and penalty Revenue has taken a stand that the Tribunal has not disturbed the finding of the Commissioner (Appeals). On the other hand, the appellant has taken a stand that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ase, a redemption fine of Rs. 8,00,000/- and penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- would meet the ends of justice. We have further to state that the appellant s submissions that the Apex Court has categorically held that the appellant is not liable to pay any fine and penalty is not at all correct. If the apex court had held like that there was no need for the Revenue to file a miscellaneous application seeking a clarification from this Tribunal. In fact, the order of the Apex Court is as follows : The Interlocutory Application No. 4 is dismissed reserving liberty with the applicant to move the Tribunal for clarification. 8. Even the appellant s averment that the same view was upheld by the High Court of Kerala in its judgment dated 4-4-2008 is a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
