TMI Blog2023 (10) TMI 830X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... o the respondents. Initially the assessable value was also revised by the original adjudicating authority to the Minimum Import Price prescribed by the DGFT. However, in appeal the valuation at the declared import price was accepted by Commissioner (Appeals) and no appeal on that ground has been filed by revenue. The appellant has been regularly importing by violating the Minimum Import Price (MIP) condition prescribed by the DGFT. It is noticed that the original authorities have been imposing redemption fine roughly equal to the amount of differential duty demanded. However, the Tribunal in the earlier cases had reduced the redemption fine and personal penalty by 90%. The impugned order in the instance case has followed the earlier order of Tribunal and reduced the redemption fine and personal penalty by 90% relying on the Tribunal order in appellant s own case. It is noticed from the pattern of continuing violation that the redemption fine and penalty imposed earlier are not discouraging the repeat of offence. It is seen that the appellants continue to violate the import policy in respect of Minimum Import Price with impunity. The redemption fine imposed earlier has not deterred ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e. 4. This appeal has been filed by the Revenue. It has been argued by the learned AR that the redemption fine imposed by the original adjudicating authority was proper. It has been argued that by learned AR that the grounds of reduction of redemption fine and penalty are not elaborated in the order of Commissioner (Appeals) who has merely stated that looking at the gravity of offence and the earlier order of Tribunal the redemption fine and penalty has been revised downwards. He argued that it could not have been done after having observed that, the goods are liable to confiscation and that the respondents have violated the provisions of imported policy deliberately. It has been argued that in terms of Section 125 of Customs Act, 1962 the redemption fine cannot be exceed the market price of the goods confiscated less the amount of duty chargeable thereon, so as neutralize any benefit that may accrue to the importer from such illegal act of importation of impugned goods. It has been argued that the adjudicating authority has imposed redemption fine amounting to 17.98% of the declared transaction value and only 6% on the declared value as penalty. As against this, the Commissioner ( ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lates shot blasted/ coated with Zinc Silicate . In respect of the said items Notification No. 38/2015-20 dated 05.02.2016 places restriction in nature of the prescribed Minimum Import Price. The notification prohibits imports at price less than USD 643/MT for the impugned item by placing the minimum import price as condition of import. The appellants have imported the goods at USD 398/MT, practically half the price prescribed by DGFT by the aforesaid notification. The goods were, therefore, confiscated and offered for release on payment of redemption fine and penalty to the respondents. Initially the assessable value was also revised by the original adjudicating authority to the Minimum Import Price prescribed by the DGFT. However, in appeal the valuation at the declared import price was accepted by Commissioner (Appeals) and no appeal on that ground has been filed by revenue. The Commissioner (Appeals) had reduced the redemption fine and personal penalty in line with the earlier orders of Tribunal in following members. OIO No No. date Value of the goods Redemption fine-OIO Penalty-OIO Redemption fine-OIA Penalty-OIA MCH/ADC/GPM/52/2017-18 dated 08.09.2017 16,67,62,872/- 3,00,00,00 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... a reformative or corrective than as a deterrent or punitive measure. But it may not be appropriate to adopt the same approach in dealing with every offence committed by a vessel which contravenes Section 52A. Illegal importation of gold has assumed the proportions of a major problem faced by the country, and the manifold, clever and ingenious devices adopted in carrying out these illegal operations tend to show that the organization which is responsible for them is inspired merely by cupidity because it conducts its operations solely for the purpose of making profit, and so, it would be open to the Customs Authorities to take the view that the best way to check the spread of these illegal operations is to impose deterrent fines whenever these offences are discovered and proved . Having regard to this aspect of the matter, if the Customs Authorities took the view that the fine of Rs. 25 lakhs was called for in the present case, we see no reason whatever to entertain the plea made by Mr. Choudhary that the said fine should be reduced. The argument that the impact of such heavy fines may adversely affect the trade of the country, seems to us to be wholly misconceived and ill-founded. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .2016 643 460 183 5. C/11801/2017 7441850 14.11.2016 643 398 245 10.1 It is noticed that the appellant has been regularly importing by violating the Minimum Import Price (MIP) condition prescribed by the DGFT. It is noticed that the original authorities have been imposing redemption fine roughly equal to the amount of differential duty demanded. However, the Tribunal in the earlier cases had reduced the redemption fine and personal penalty by 90%. The impugned order in the instance case has followed the earlier order of Tribunal and reduced the redemption fine and personal penalty by 90% relying on the Tribunal order in appellant s own case. It is noticed from the pattern of continuing violation that the redemption fine and penalty imposed earlier are not discouraging the repeat of offence. It is seen that the appellants continue to violate the import policy in respect of Minimum Import Price with impunity. The amount of redemption fine and penalty imposed in terms of the earlier order of the Tribunal does not seem to be discouraging to the appellant from violating the import policy provision. In this instant case this is sixth violation of the policy by the appellant. The severity ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
