TMI Blog2019 (3) TMI 983X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... fine should be the market value of the goods prevailing at the time of seizure and not at the time of passing the order. The Five Member Larger Bench of the Tribunal had addressed the very same issue in the case of Omex India Vs. Commissioner of Customs [1992 (12) TMI 57 - CEGAT, NEW DELHI]. It was held that the market price at the time of importation has to be taken into consideration for calculating the fine that has to be paid for redeeming the goods. The appellant is liable to pay redemption fine on the market value of the goods as it stood at the time of seizure which is ₹ 7,35,247.81 - The Commissioner (Appeals) has held that the margin of profit would range from 30% to 50%. Therefore, the redemption fine is reduced to ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Court set aside the orders of the Commissioner (Appeals) and the Tribunal and remanded the matter back to the Commissioner (Appeals) with a direction to pass orders on merits taking into consideration the relevant documents filed before it. 2. The Commissioner (Appeals) vide order dated 29.4.2009, disposed the appeal on merits as per the direction of the Hon'ble High Court dated 26.8.2008. In the said order, the Commissioner (Appeals) held that the confiscation of the goods absolutely was incorrect and allowed the appellant to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine. However, while imposing the redemption fine, the market value of 2565 grams of gold was calculated on the basis of market value prevailing on the date of passing ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms to be ₹ 37,76,962.50 after taking into account the market value prevailing at the time of passing the order. He adverted to proviso to sub-section (1) of section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 and submitted that the fine imposed cannot exceed the market price of the goods confiscated. In the present case, the goods having been seized on 22.4.1992, the market value prevailing at the date of seizure ought to have been the basis for determination of redemption fine. The Commissioner (Appeals) has taken the market value prevailing in 2009 to fix the redemption fine which is against the provisions of law. He also relied upon the definition of value given in Section 2(41) of Customs Act, 1962. He submitted that the said section refers to val ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... . As pointed out earlier, the power of the appellate Tribunal is exercisable under Section 129B(1) only against the decision or order appealed against and in doing so, it may pass such orders as it thinks fit affirming, modifying and annulling the decision or order appealed against. Admittedly, the Department did not file an appeal against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) permitting the redemption of the seized gold. In such circumstances, the Revenue should not be said to be aggrieved by such a direction granting redemption and the Tribunal clearly erred in dismissing the appellant's appeal and restoring the order passed by the original authority. 13. For the above reasons, the appeal is allowed and the order passed by the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the value of the goods has to be arrived on the date of import / export. The delay in adjudication cannot be a factor for deciding the market value of the goods by the department. In the case of enhancement alleging non-declaration of correct value of goods, the basis of the similar imports during the relevant period is to be taken into consideration and not the value of the goods at the time of passing the order by the authority. In this line, when the redemption fine is imposed, the relevant date for fixing the redemption fine should be the market value of the goods prevailing at the time of seizure and not at the time of passing the order. 10. The Five Member Larger Bench of the Tribunal had addressed the very same issue in the case o ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
