Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S. Union Trading Company vs Cc, Chennai on 2 July, 2009
IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX
APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
SOUTH ZONAL BENCH, CHENNAI
C/487/2002 & C/488/2002
(Arising out of Order in Appeal No. 472/2002 dated 10.10.2002, and Order in Appeal No. 473/2002 dated 10.10.2002, passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Chennai).
For approval and signature
Honble Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President
Honble Dr. C. Satapathy, 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 Honble Member wishes to see the fair :
copy of the Order.
4. Whether order is to be circulated to the :
Departmental Authorities? _________________________________________________________
M/s. Union Trading Company : Appellant
Vs.
CC, Chennai : Respondent
Appearance Shri Ramalingam, Adv., for the appellant Ms. Indira Sisupal, JDR, for the respondent CORAM Ms. JYOTI BALASUNDARAM, Vice President Dr. C. Satapathy, Technical Member Date of hearing : 02.07.09 Date of decision : 02.07.09 Final ORDER No._____________ Per: Jyoti Balasundaram, We have heard both sides on the above appeals against confiscation of Fresh Garlic of Chinese origin imported by the appellants herein. The authorities below have rightly held that Specific Import Licence (SIL) is required to import fresh garlic and in the absence of SIL, the goods are liable for confiscation. Since the appellants did not possess any valid license for the import of fresh garlic, the Addl. Commissioner confiscated the goods with an option to redeem the goods on payment of a fine and a penalty also has been imposed on the importer.
2. The importer does not challenge the findings that the goods are required to be imported under SIL. The only contention of the appellants is that the fine and penalty are excessive and require to be reduced. However, we do not see any merit in their contention for the reason that in the appeal No. 487/02, the value of the goods have been found to be Rs. 5,70,761/- while the fine imposed is only Rs. 74,000/-, in view of the margin of profit of 12.95% worked out, and the penalty is only Rs. 10,000/- and in the second case viz. C/488/02, a fine of Rs. 78,000/- and a penalty of Rs. 7,000/- has been imposed in respect of the goods valued at over Rs. Six lakhs. We therefore, uphold the impugned orders and reject the appeals.
(Order dictated and pronounced in the open Court)
(C. SATAPATHY) (JYOTI BALASUNDARAM)
TECHNICAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
BB
3