Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S Just Marble vs Commissioner Of Customs (Import), ... on 2 December, 2016
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL WEST ZONAL BENCH AT MUMBAI COURT NO. I Appeal No. C/688 & 689/06 (Arising out of Order-in-Original No. 37 & 39/2006/CAC/CC(I)/AKP dated 27.2.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai). For approval and signature: Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial) ======================================================
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982? 2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? 3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order? 4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities? ====================================================== M/s Just Marble M/s Vaishno Marbles Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai Respondent Appearance: Shri Anil Balani, Advocate for Appellant Shri Ahibaran, Addl. Commissioner (AR) for Respondent CORAM: SHRI M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) Date of Hearing: 10.10.2016 Date of Decision: 02.12.2016 ORDER NO. Per: M.V. Ravindran
These two appeals are directed against Order-in-Original No. 37 & 39/2006/CAC/CC(I)/AKP dated 27.2.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Import), Mumbai.
2. Heard both sides and perused the records.
3. The issue that falls for consideration in these appeals is regarding the redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority in lieu of confiscation and also the penalties.
4. The appellants herein had imported rough marble blocks and sought clearance by declaring a value. The said Bills of Entry were provisionally assessed by the Customs authorities and subsequently finalized by enhancing the value and also holding that there is mis-declaration on part of the appellants in terms of description i.e. the appellant described the goods imported as marble block which was in fact calcareous stone, which was restricted. The appellant discharged the customs duty liability on the enhanced value and contested the matter before the adjudicating authority. The adjudicating authority upheld the enhancement of the value and also held that there was mis-declaration, but since the goods were released provisionally, he imposed fine of Rs.38 lakhs in lieu of confiscation and imposed a penalty of Rs.7.5 lakhs under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The adjudicating authority held that the goods are liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) and (m) of the Customs Act, 1962.
5. On consideration of the submissions made by the learned Counsel, I find that there is no merit in the appeals as adjudicating authority has correctly held that the goods imported are calcareous stone other than marble, which should be imported only under specific license during relevant period. To that extent, I uphold the impugned order.
5.1 As regards the redemption fine imposed, I find that the adjudicating authority has imposed redemption fine of Rs.38 lakhs as against the landed cost of Rs.23 lakhs or the market price of Rs.61 lakhs. Various decision of the Tribunal on the same issue is that the redemption fine is to be imposed @ 20% of the enhanced value which in that case approx Rs.4.6 lakhs, which I find will meet the ends of justice. Accordingly, the redemption fine imposed in the case in hand of M/s Just Marble is reduced to Rs.4.6 lakhs and in the case of Vaishno Marble, it is reduced to Rs.4.6 lakhs. Subject to such modification, the impugned order of imposition of fine is upheld.
5.2 As regards the penalties imposed, I find that the penalty imposed on M/s Just Marble is Rs.7.5 lakhs, which is excessive in relation to the value of landed cost of the marble. Hence, I reduce the same to Rs.2 lakhs. The penalty imposed on Vaishno Marble is also imposed Rs.8 lakhs which is reduced to Rs. 2 lakhs. The penalties imposed by me are as per the various decisions of the Tribunal, wherein it was held that the penalty should be imposed @ 10% of the value of the landed cost of the imported goods.
6. Accordingly, in view of the foregoing, the appeals are disposed of by reducing the redemption fine and penalty imposed.
(Order pronounced in Court on 02.12.2016) (M.V. Ravindran) Member (Judicial) Sinha 3 Appeal No. C/688 & 689/06