TMI Blog2023 (8) TMI 1247X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 11) TMI 625 - CESTAT MUMBAI] , wherein this Tribunal has held that At any event all the importers had agreed during the personal hearing conducted by the then Commissioner of Customs (I), that the impugned goods were either old and used garments other than rags or they were not mutilated as per the norms laid down in this regard. It is on this agreement for the nature/description of goods, that we have to proceed further in this case. As regards the margin of profit, a market survey was done whose salient features are as follows in the impugned order. Against the confirmed duties and the penalties the Redemption Fine imposed by the Adjudicating Authority, the Respondent has not filed any appeals. The redemption fine and penalty impo ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne is imposed. 2.3 Against the said orders, the Revenue is before us for enhancement of redemption fine and penalty. 3. Heard the parties and perused the records. 4. We find that this issue came up before this Tribunal in the case of Venus Traders Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai reported in 2019 (365) ELT 958 (Tri.-Mumbai), wherein this Tribunal has observed as under : 4. We find that proceedings initiated against most of the imports commenced even before the filing of bills of entry. In these circumstances, invoking of Section 111(m) which applies to 111(m) any goods which do not correspond in respect of value or in any other particular with the entry made under this Act or in the case of baggage with the declar ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ne, should be made known to the appellant. It is, therefore, the manner in which the original authority had, in the first instance, ascertained the margin of profit that was required to be supplied to the appellants. The original authority has patently failed to do so and has tried to rectify the deficiency of such ascertainment by a process that is not only bereft of validity but also inconsistent with the remand order. The Tribunal, in its remand order, had allowed determination of value of misdeclared goods. That part of the remand order appears impossible to comply with ex post facto in the light of the finding that 4. From the examination report (only one consignment was subjected to 100% examination on first check basis), which ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ailure to comply with the licensing requirements, we uphold the confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962. However, it is our opinion that the ends of justice would be served by reducing the redemption fine to 10% of the ascertained value and penalty to 5%. 5. Against the confirmed duties and the penalties the Redemption Fine imposed by the Adjudicating Authority, the Respondent has not filed any appeals. 6. Following the above cited decision of this Tribunal, we hold that the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the respondents by the adjudicating authority is sufficient to meet the end of justice. Therefore, the redemption fine and penalty confirmed by the adjudicating authority are upheld. 7. Conseq ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
