TMI Blog2015 (10) TMI 2444X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Redemption fine and penalty cannot be said as unwarranted - Appellant held guilty– Decided in favour of the Revenue. - Customs Appeal No. 7 of 2010 - Final Order No. 53097 / 2015 - Dated:- 23-9-2015 - Mr. G. Raghuram, President And Mr. R. K. Singh, Member (Technical) Smt. Suchitra Sharma, Commissioner (AR) : for the Respondent Per: R. K. Singh: ORDER: Appeal has been filed against order-in-original dated 22.12.2009 in terms of which 239.970 MT of rice valued at ₹ 73,36,098/- was confiscated under Section 113 of the Customs Act, 1962 and an option was given to redeem the same for home consumption on payment of redemption fine of ₹ 30,00,000/-. Penalty of ₹ 15,00,000/- was also imposed. 2. The fact ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. vs. Union of India 1990 (47) ELT 213 (SC) in which it has been held that the determination of quantum of redemption fine should be done taking into account the circumstances and bonafide conduct of the party. It also cited few judgments to the effect that imposition of fine requires leniency if there is no malafide intention on the part of the appellant and that no penalty is imposable in the absence of mens-rea. 4. We have considered the contentions of the appellant. We find that the appellant is not really challenging the report of the Deputy Agricultural Marketing Adviser, Ministry of Agriculture, Department of Agriculture and co-operation, Directorate of Marketing and Inspection, Chandigarh which has clea ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ppellants obligation to ensure that goods attempted to be exported were basmati rice. The quantity attempted to be exported was 239.970 MT and it is not believable by any yardstick that such huge quantity was purchased by the appellant and it did not realise that the goods were not basmati rice. A person dealing in such huge quantity of a commodity cannot claim that it could not make out that the rice was not basmati rice as the distinction between basmati rice and non basmati rice is not so insignificant as not to be noticed/ felt by persons dealing with the commodity at such large scale. Also, there is no evidence that the appellant proceeded against any of the suppliers who, it claimed, cheated it at such a large scale. Therefore, the a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
