TMI Blog2004 (3) TMI 257X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... peal, whose appeal was dismissed for non-compliance. The Commissioner, in the impugned order, has dealt with 23 parties who had purchased the said machine from the main importer viz. M/s. Bhuvaneshwari Services. He has upheld the allegation against 10 parties, in respect of whom the jurisdictional DRI could locate the machines used, and has seized the same. Out of the 10 machineries, which were seized from the premises of the purchasers, 5 parties have filed the appeals. The name of the party, description, quantity, date of seizure and value of the machines are noted in the tabulated form below. Sl. No. Name of the party Description of goods Qty. Date of seizure Value (Rs.) R.F. u/s 125 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ms of the said Policy, the goods are not required to be sold but are required to be used only by the Actual Users. Investigation revealed that the importer M/s. Bhuvaneshwari Services had sold all the imported machineries. Hence, the Commissioner, after noting all the replies made by the respective parties, upheld the allegation of contravention of the EXIM policy. He has taken a lenient view in so far as the imposition of fine and penalty is concerned. He has given a detailed reasoning to overrule the plea laid down by the parties that there was no mens rea or intention to evade duty. He has noted that the same is not a pre-requisite for imposition of penalty under taxation laws and in this regard has relied on the High Court judgment rend ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ds under Section 111. He has, however, not proceeded to impose redemption fine equivalent to the market value in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act, but has restricted only to impose 10% of the value of the goods. 2. Arguing for the appellants, the learned Counsels Shri S. Raghu and Shri S.R. Madhavamurthy, submitted that the Tribunal in the case of Nirmal Surekha v. CC, Amritsar reported in 2001 (132) E.L.T. 597 (Tri.-Del.) has set aside the redemption fine on the ground that the purchasers of the machinery were also actual users. It is submitted that the appellants were under bona fide belief that as the goods had suffered duty and were cleared through Customs, there was no violation of any law to unable them to purchase the same f ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... It is pointed out by the DR that the appellants did not dispute the correctness of the value adopted by the Department on the seized goods. The Commissioner has already shown leniency in imposing only 10% of the value as redemption fine and Rs. 5,000/- as penalty. It is submitted that no further leniency is required to be shown. It is also pointed out that the plea of bona fide belief by purchaser has not been accepted by the Tribunal in the light of several judgments noted therein including the judgment of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Jain Exports Private Limited v. Collector as reported in 1991 (51) E.L.T. 579. The Tribunal has also noted Supreme Court judgment rendered in the case of Dynamatic Hydraulics Ltd. v. Collector - 1992 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the case, as has been held by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Jain Exports v. UOI (supra) that resort to Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, to impose fine in lieu of confiscation cannot be so exercised as to give a bonanza or profits for an illegal transaction of import. So long as there is violation of law, Section 111 empowers the proper Officer to confiscate the goods. In terms of Section 125, an option to redeem the goods can be given to the owner or to the person from whose possession the goods were seized. In the present case, the option to redeem has been granted to the appellants from whose possession the goods were seized. Therefore, the appellant's contention that redemption fine cannot be imposed on them but sho ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ri Services has violated any provisions of law. Merely to argue that they had verified with regard to M/s. Bhuvaneshwari Services having paid Customs duty on the goods is not sufficient. The ignorance of law is no excuse in the matter. So long as the goods become confiscable, a grievance cannot be raised that the same cannot be confiscated. When the goods have been confiscated, the proper officer has got an option to grant redemption of the goods on payment of fine to the owner or the person from whom the goods were seized. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order. The impugned order is legal and proper and has been passed after due consideration of the case in the light of the judgments laid down by the Apex Court, Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
