Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Commissioner Of Customs Cochin-Cus vs Atul Automation Pvt Ltd on 14 September, 2017
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SOUTH ZONAL BENCH BANGALORE Appeal(s) Involved: C/672/2010-SM [Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 143-2009 dated 23/10/2009 passed by , ] Commissioner of Customs COCHIN-CUS NULL CUSTOM HOUSE COCHIN - 682009 Appellant(s) Versus ATUL AUTOMATION PVT LTD 8, BENTINCK STREET, KOLKATA, WEST BENGAL. Respondent(s)
Appearance:
Shri Navin Kushalappa (AR) For the Appellant Shri PA Augustine (Adv) For the Respondent Date of Hearing: 14/09/2017 Date of Decision: 14/09/2017 CORAM:
HON'BLE SHRI S.S GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER Final Order No. 22049 / 2017 Per : S.S GARG The present appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the impugned order dated 23.10.2009 passed by the Commissioner Customs whereby the Commissioner has imposed a redemption of fine of Rs. 9,00,000/- and also imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- on the Importer M/s. Atul Automation (P) Ltd. under section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962.
2. Briefly the facts of the case are that M/s. Atul Automation (P) Ltd. filed Bill of Entry No.255347 dated 06.10.2009 for clearance of 372 numbers of old and used copier machines of Canon brand with a declared value of Rs. 40,92,423/. The invoice produced by the Importer could not be correlated and as it did not contain specifications relevant for second hand goods and hence the services of independent Chartered Engineer were obtained. Chartered Engineer filed its report and recommended a value of USD 1,10,990 (C&F) and accordingly, total assessable value worked out to Rs. 55,09,346/-.
2.1 As per the Revenue, the Importer has not submitted any licence which is required for the import of these goods and therefore the goods are liable for confiscation for violation of policy conditions. Thereafter, after following the due process of law, Commissioner of Customs vide Order-In-Original dated 23.10.2009 adjudicated the matter and confiscated the goods under section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with section 3(3) of Foreign Trade (D & R) Act, 1992 and allowed the Importer to redeem the goods on payment of Rs.9,00,000/-. A penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- was also imposed on Importer under section 112 (a) of the Customs Act, 1962. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue has filed this present Appeal on the ground that Commissioner has imposed quite a low fine and penalty compared to the value of the goods and the magnitude of policy violation and the margin of profit involved in the case.
3. Heard the learned AR and the Counsel for the assessee.
4. Learned AR for the Revenue submitted that keeping in view the value of the goods and the violation of the policy, the Commissioner has imposed a very low fine and penalty whereas he should have imposed fine and penalty equal to the value of the goods. On the other hand, the Counsel for the Assessee defended the impugned order and submitted that the learned Commissioner has imposed the fine and the penalty after considering various Appellate Orders reducing the fine and the penalty to 10% and 5%. The Commissioner while imposing the fine and penalty, has also taken notice of the order No. 2008 (226) ELT 486 (Madras) of the Hon.ble High Court of Madras dated 31.01.2008 and the judgment of the Honble High Court of Kerala dated 05.06.2009.
5. After considering the submissions of both the parties, I find no infirmity in the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs imposing the redemption of fine of Rs. 9,00,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000/- and the Commissioner while imposing this fine and penalty, has considered the judgment of Madras High Court as well as the High Court of Kerala cited supra. Therefore, I do not find any infirmity in the impugned order which is upheld by dismissing the present Appeal. Accordingly, the Appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.
(Operative portion of the Order was pronounced in Open Court on 14/09/2017) S.S GARG JUDICIAL MEMBER RB 1