TMI Blog2017 (7) TMI 274X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... uthority concerned has the discretion to give an option to seek release of confiscated goods, upon payment of such fine as the authority thinks fit and, the fine so imposed should not exceed the market price of the confiscated goods and in arriving at the market price, adjustment of duty chargeable in case of imported goods is required to be made. The proviso to section 125(1) of the Act does not say as construed by the Tribunal that the redemption fine should equal the market value. Furthermore, it appears that the Tribunal did not give enough time to the revenue to revert with the necessary information as to what would be the market price of the subject goods - matter requires reconsideration - appeal allowed by way of remand. - C.M.A. No. 2485 2013 and M. P. No. 1 of 2013 - - - Dated:- 12-6-2017 - Rajiv Shakdher And R. Suresh Kumar, JJ. For the Petitioner : Mr.P.Rajkumar Jhabak For the Respondents : Mr.S.Murugappan JUDGMENT 1. This is an appeal preferred by the Revenue against the Judgment and Order, dated 22.03.2007 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal (in short, 'the Tribunal'). 2. The appeal was admitted on 10.1 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... nt view of the matter ought to be taken. The assessee, evidently, agreed to pay differential duty. 4.3. Consequent there to, a show cause notice was issued to the assessee to which a reply was filed. The assessee in his reply denied the allegations made in the show cause notice. 4.4. Upon the assessee's request, the subject goods were re-examined. The re-examination revealed that 70,261 Metric Tonnes (MTs) out of the total quantity imported were tin-free sheet, while the balance quantity equivalent to 198.673 MTS was tin Sheets (secondary). It appears that though the Adjudicating Authority accepted the second examination report, it ruled that it was a case of deliberate misdeclaration with an intent to evade duty. Accordingly, the Adjudicating Authority ordered confiscation of 198.673 MTs of tin plate waste/waste above 600 mm, under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 (in short, 'the Act'). The assessee, however, was given the option to redeem the goods upon payment of fine of ₹ 25 lakhs. The differential duty which was demanded, was pegged at R.14,12,161/-. In addition, there to, as indicated above, the penalty in the sum of ₹ 5 lakhs was imposed ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ndered the goods liable for confiscation under Section 111 of the Act. By directing this Tribunal to proceed to determine the penal liability of the appellants, the Hon'ble High Court was proceeding on the premise that the goods were liable for confiscation. The question now before us is whether a redemption fine is liable to be imposed on the appellants under Section 125 of the Act. Learned Counsel submits that the facts relevant to this question were considered by this Tribunal in the earlier final order and the same have not been rebutted. With reference to a worksheet presented by him today, learned counsel submits that the appellant had actually incurred loss to the extent of 12% in connection with the subject import and therefore no fine is liable to be imposed in lieu of confiscation of the goods. The worksheet produced by counsel reads as under:- Value of Tin Plate 178.15 Mts, as per Bill of Entry No. 12198 dated 19.04.2001 - ₹ 39,19,853.00 Duty on the above - ₹ 24,64,019.00 Value of Tin Plats 20.523 MTs. Covered by Bill of Entry No. 8783 dated 19.04. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t of Section 125 of the Act would show that whenever confiscation of goods is ordered, the officer may give the owner of the goods or where the owner of the goods is not known, the person from whom possession or custody of the goods is seized, option to pay in lieu of confiscation, such fine as he thinks fit. A plain reading of the section shows that this option would also extend to those confiscated goods, the importation or exportation of which is prohibited under the Act or any other law for the time being in force. 7. The proviso to sub-section (1) of Section 125 of the Act states that without prejudice to the provisions of the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 115, such fine shall not exceed the market price of the goods confiscated less the duty chargeable in case of imported goods. 8. In the instant case, the proviso to subsection (2) of Section 115 of the Act need not detain us, which generally relates to confiscation of conveyances. Suffice it to say that the authority concerned has the discretion to give an option to seek release of confiscated goods, upon payment of such fine as the authority thinks fit and, the fine so imposed should not exceed the market pric ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
