Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
M/S M.G. Exports vs C.C.(Icd), New Delhi on 26 February, 2014
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
WEST BLOCK NO.II, R.K. PURAM, NEW DELHI-110066.
Division Bench
Court No. 4
Appeal No. C/275/2009-CU
Date of hearing:26/02/2014
Arising out of OIA CC(A)/Cus/ICD/55/2009 dated 05/3/3009 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) New Customs House, New Delhi)
1.
Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?
2.
Whether it would be released under Rule 27 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?
3.
Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the order?
4.
Whether order is to be circulated to the Department Authorities?
M/s M.G. Exports Appellant
Vs.
C.C.(ICD), New Delhi Respondent
Appearance:
Present for the Appellant: Shri G.P. Singh, Consultant Present for the Respondent: Shri Rakesh Puri, AR Coram: Honble Mr. Ashok Jindal, Judicial Member Honble Mr. Manmohan Singh, Technical Member FINAL ORDER NO.50752/2014 PER: MANMOHAN SINGH The appellant have come in appeal against Order-in-Appeal No. Appl/DLH/CUS/ICD/D-II/43/2009 dated March 2009 wherein Order-in-Original was modified and redemption fine was reduced from Rs.4,50,000/- to Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs Fifty Thousand only) and personal penalty was reduced from Rs.1,00,000/- to Rs.50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only).
2. It is observed from the facts that old and used 17 and 19 CRT monitors and used keyboards (mix brand) were imported and goods were examined. It was observed that goods were old and used. However importer failed to submit original catalogue and Chartered Engineer certificate from the port of loading and proof of age and country of origin.
3. On the basis of examination by independent Chartered Engineer, CIF price was arrived at. However no details regarding freight and insurance expenses were considered in examination report. Chartered Engineer expressed his inability to comment on the details.
4. Since the goods were old and used and as per Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-2009 vide para 2.17 these goods were, restricted for import and import of second hand goods was allowed on the basis of specific import license only, Adjudicating Authority confiscated the goods and allowed clearance on imposition of redemption fine and penalty which was later modified by Commissioner (Appeals).
5. The appellants submitted in appeal before the Tribunal that redemption fine and penalty was still on the higher side. They have incurred the demurrage and detention charges to the extent of Rs.68,490/- and there was no mention of margin of profit justifying imposition of redemption fine and penalty.
6. On the other side, the ld. AR points out that Commissioner (Appeals) has already reduced the redemption fine and penalty and there was no scope of further reduction.
7. Heard both sides.
8. We have examined the submissions from both side and find this is case requiring imposition of redemption fine and penalty. Penalty has already been reduced from Rs.1,00,000/- to 50,000/- (Rupees fifty thousand only). We consider it adequate and find that no intervention is required. However as regard to redemption fine, it is observed that Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine of Rs.4,50,000/- to Rs.3,50,000/- (Rupees Three Lacs Fifty Thousand only). Keeping the factual matrix in mind and also considering the submissions made by appellants, we reduce the redemption fine to Rs.3.50 lakhs (Rupees Three lakhs and fifty thousand only) to Rs.2.00 lakhs (Rupees Two lakhs only).
9. In view of above, Commissioner (Appeals) Order is modified to the above extent and appeal is partly allowed.
(Dictated & pronounced in the Open Court.)
(ASHOK JINDAL) (MANMOHAN SINGH)
JUDICIAL MEMBER TECHNICAL MEMBER
K. Gupta