TMI Blog2014 (12) TMI 1078X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... b-section (1), however, stipulates is a ceiling on the fine in lieu of confiscation, insofar as it stipulates that such fine shall not exceed the market price of the goods confiscated. Now, it is in the background of the provisions of Section 125 that the legality of the order would have to be assessed. Quantum of fine is concerned) so long as the quantum of redemption fine was not in excess of the stipulation contained in the proviso to sub-section (1) to Section 125. In fact, before the Tribunal, it was sought to be urged, as recorded in the impugned order, that the value declared in respect of the mis-declared goods must be reduced to the extent of the value of the actual goods in the consignment. The Tribunal was justified in holding ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ng that the misdeclared value of the goods cannot be reduced to the actual market value of the goods attempted to be exported specially when the Act and the rules do not whisper so. (iii) Whether the Hon'ble Tribunal is justified in imposing redemption fine and penalty when they do not doubt the submission of the appellants that the goods in question was loaded by mistake of the labourers and the consignment for export was lying as such in the factory. The appellant filed a shipping bill on 6 February 2009 for the export of a consignment of 125.00 MT of Indian Pusa 1121 Parboiled Rice , which was valued at ₹ 67.82 lacs (Fob). When the customs department at ICD Loni carried out an inspection and examination on 6 February 20 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nd, accordingly, reduced it to ₹ 10 lakhs. The penalty was also reduced from ₹ 8 lakhs to ₹ 5 lakhs. The submission which has been urged in support of the appeal, is based on the provisions of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. It has been urged on behalf of the appellant by the learned counsel that the redemption fine which is imposed in lieu of confiscation could have only been imposed on the actual value of goods that were sought to be exported. In particular, reliance was placed on the proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 125 under which it has been specified that the redemption fine shall not exceed the market price of the goods confiscated. In the present case, it was submitted that the redemption fine of S ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e to any duty and charges payable in respect of such goods. Under Section 125, the adjudicating officer may, in the case of goods, the importation or exportation of which is prohibited, and shall, in the case of any other goods, give to the owner of the goods an option to pay in lieu of confiscation, such fine as the officer thinks fit. On a plain reading of the language of the substantive part of sub-section (1) of Section 125, it is clear that the legislature has not imposed a restriction of the kind which has been sought to be implied on behalf of the appellant. What the proviso to sub-section (1), however, stipulates is a ceiling on the fine in lieu of confiscation, insofar as it stipulates that such fine shall not exceed the mar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lared goods must be reduced to the extent of the value of the actual goods in the consignment. The Tribunal was justified in holding that no such exercise could be carried out and the Court has no jurisdiction to do so, so as to legalize a patent illegality. Be that as it may, the Tribunal has, in the exercise of its discretion and considering that the redemption fine was on the higher side, reduced it from ₹ 14 lakhs to ₹ 10 lakhs and the penalty from ₹ 8 lakhs to ₹ 5 lakhs. The case of the appellant was that the goods were mis-declared as a result of a mistake of its labourers. That is besides the point, because the fact does remain that, in his declaration of the goods which were meant for export, the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
