9911796707
TMI Blog2012 (10) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... mposed upon the respondent/importer in respect of the Hummer H2 imported by each of them. The brief facts are that the assessee respondent in the first case, Sh. J.S. Jolly and the respondent/assessee in the second case, Sh. M.S. Raksha filed bills of entry on 24.01.2008 and 11.02.2008 respectively, for the car, described as "brand new car" Hummer H2 Right Hand Drive. In both cases, the cars were imported from the United Arab Emirates (UAE) at an identical unit price of US$55,000 CIF. The goods were examined on first check basis and it was held that they confirmed with the invoice packing list and Bill of Lading. The duty determined was Rs.24,95,180/- in Sh. J.S. Jolly's case and Rs.24,92,041/- in Sh. M.S. Raksha's case. 2. The Customs aut ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... redemption fine. However, the quantum of both was reduced in each case. The redemption fine in both appeals was reduced to Rs.2,00,000/- and the penalty to Rs.1,00,000/-. The Tribunal's reasoning is as follows: "6. The contention of the ld. Advocate is that in this case, the country of manufacturer is U.S.A., which is not mentioned in Policy Circular No.26 dated 9.2.2004. The ld. DR had not disputed this fact. The ld. DR contended that as per Foreign Trade Policy (2004-2009), Para 9.6 of Chapter-9, the Appellant should have request seeking clarification on any provisions of importability of items issued I.T.C.(HS) may be made to DGFT. I do not find force in the submission of the ld. DR. It has been alleged that the Appellant failed to prod ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ich provides that the vehicle shall be imported from the country of manufacture. It is revealed from the Bill of Lading that the vehicle was loaded at Thailand. There is no evidence produced by the Appellants that the vehicles were imported from USA. So, the confiscation of the vehicles on this ground is justified. 8. In view of the above discussions, it is held that confiscation of the vehicles for violation of Para 2(II)(a)(iv) of the import Licensing Note to Chapter 87 of the ITC (HS) Policy is upheld. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the redemption fine and penalty are reduced to Rs.2,00,000.00 and Rs.1,00,000.00 respectively in each appeal. Both the appeals are disposed of in the above terms." 5. The Commissioner ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oes not argue that the surviving ground was unjustifiably upheld by the Tribunal. In these circumstances, the least that the Tribunal ought to have done was to indicate why the redemption fine amount and the quantum of penalty required to be reduced. An overall conspectus of the facts of the case would show that the redemption fine was barely 25% of the total amount which could have been recovered; likewise, the penalty was a fraction of the total value of the goods, including the different component. A further reduction, in the opinion of this Court, should have been resorted to only if there were certain unusual or exceptional features indicating hardship or benefits or complete good faith on the part of the importers. There is, however, ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
