Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Mohammed Azeem vs Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai on 25 October, 2013
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH AT CHENNAI
Appeal No.C/254/2005
[Arising out of Order-in-Original No.02/05-Commr.(AIR) dated 24-12-05 passed by the Commissioner ofCustoms, Chennai]
For approval and signature:
Honble Shri MATHEW JOHN, Technical Member
1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see 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
CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not? :
3. Whether the Member wishes to see the fair copy of
the Order? :
4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental
Authorities? :
Mohammed Azeem
Appellant
Versus
Commissioner of Customs, Chennai
Respondent
Appearance:
Shri A.Ganesh, Advocate For the Appellant Ms. Indira Sisupal, AC (AR) For the Respondent CORAM:
HonbleShri Mathew John, Technical Member Date of hearing : 25-10-2013 Date of decision : 25-10-2013 FINAL ORDER No.40479/2013
1. The appellant was a passenger travelling from Chennai Anna International Airport to Colombo on 02-10-99. Appellant had declared that he was not carrying any gold jewellery. But on examination of his checked in baggage, gold ornaments weighing 2934 gms. then valued at Rs.12,49,003/- was found. The goods were seized and the appellant was proceeded against. There was also foreign currency valued at Rs.84,539/- which was also seized and later absolutely confiscated. The advocate for the appellant states that the appellant was arrested and was in the prison for 65 days. After two rounds of adjudication and first appeal in the present round of adjudication, there is a redemption fine of Rs.6,25,000/- imposed for redeeming the goods which has already been paid. Further there is a penalty of Rs.25,000/- imposed on the appellant which also is paid.
2. The appellant is aggrieved that the redemption fine imposed is disproportionate to the offence. The advocate for the appellant relies on the decision of Liaquat Ali Hameed Vs CC Chennai - 2003 (156) ELT 863 (Tri.-Chennai) wherein redemption fine of Rs.15 lakhs imposed for redeeming goods valued at Rs.24,21,700/- was reduced to Rs.2,40,000/-. He also relies on the decision of Tribunal in the case of R.Nandagopal Vs CC Chennai wherein vide Final Order No.401/09 dt. 08-04-09 (in Appeal C/374/2008) redemption fine of Rs.12 lakhs imposed for redeeming the goods worth Rs.30,66,110/- was reduced to Rs.3,50,000/-. He submits that considering the penalties imposed in those cases, RF imposed in the present case which is almost 50% of the value of the seized goods, is very high and requests that leniency may be shown.
3. Ld. AR for Revenue submits that appellant stated that initially that the ornaments were for the marriage of his sister but later it was revealed that he was just a carrier who was carrying the goods for a remuneration of Rs.10,000/-. Since he was just a carrier, leniency should not be shown.
4. I have considered the submissions on both sides. I feel that for the offence committed, the appellant has undergone sufficient punishment and the redemption fine is on the higher side. Therefore, I reduce the redemption fine to Rs.2,00,000/- (Rupees Two lakhs only) and thus partially allow the appeal.
(Dictated and pronounced in open court) (MATHEW JOHN) TECHNICAL MEMBER gs 2