TMI Blog2017 (5) TMI 1126X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... le in terms of Section 125 of the CA, 1962. The reduction of the said fine to ₹ 5 lakhs by the impugned order is not justified. There is no reason at all recorded for such reduction. The reasons recorded by the impugned order for setting aside the penalty is not legally justifiable. The provisions of Section 112(b) is correctly invoked for penalties on these Directors. Appeal allowed - decided in favor of Revenue. - Customs Appeal No.51368/2014-SM - Final Order No.53286/2017 - Dated:- 8-5-2017 - Shri B. Ravichandran, Member (Technical) Rep. by Shri K. Poddar, DR for the appellant. Rep. by none for the respondent. ORDER Per B. Ravichandran: The Revenue is in appeal against order dated 26.11.2013 of C ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2. Aggrieved by the above order, the Revenue preferred this appeal. Ld. AR elaborated the grounds of appeal. He submitted that the mis-declaration admitted by the importer has been duly dealt within the original order and has been upheld by the impugned order. However, without recording any justification or reason, the impugned order reduced the fine and penalty to 1/3rd of the original amount imposed. The fine and penalty now confirmed against the goods and importer is too meagre to meet the ends of justice, considering the misdeclaration admitted as well as the value of goods involved in the import. Regarding penalties on the directors, ld. AR submitted that the directors are apparently fully aware of the implication of the misdeclaratio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... #8377; 1,10,62,837/-. This excluded the value of counterfeit branded goods valued at ₹ 33,63,458/-. This revision of value is made basically in terms of revised invoice produced by the importers themselves during the course of examination of the goods. Admittedly, the value of goods (permissible for import) was mis-declared, at the lower side, by 10 times. This shows the seriousness of the offence. A revised value of the permissible goods alone comes to ₹ 1,10,62,837/-. The Original Authority imposed a redemption fine of ₹ 15 lakhs, which works out to less than 15% of the assessable value. I find such a redemption fine is fair and reasonable in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962. The reduction of the said fine t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
