Custom, Excise & Service Tax Tribunal
Meenakshi Auto Machines vs Tiruchirapalli on 30 September, 2024
CUSTOMS, EXCISE & SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
CHENNAI
REGIONAL BENCH - COURT No. I
Customs Appeal No.41111 of 2014
(Arising out of Order-in-Original No.4/2014 dated 13.02.2014 passed by
Commissioner of Customs, No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment,
Tiruchirapalli 620 001)
M/s.Meenakshi Auto Machines .... Appellant
New No.62, Old No.39/2, Aziz Mulk 2nd Street,
Thousand Lights,
Chennai 600 006.
VERSUS
The Commissioner of Customs, ... Respondent
No.1, Williams Road, Cantonment, Tiruchirapalli 620 001.
APPEARANCE :
Shri N. Viswanathan, Advocate, for the Appellant Shri Anoop Singh, Authorized Representative for the Respondent CORAM :
HON'BLE MR. P. DINESHA, MEMBER (JUDICIAL) HON'BLE MR. M. AJIT KUMAR, MEMBER (TECHNICAL) FINAL ORDER No.41247/2024 DATE OF HEARING : 27.08.2024 DATE OF DECISION :30.09.2024 2 Customs Appeal No. 41111 of 2014 Per: Shri P. Dinesha This appeal is against the Order-in-Original dated 13.02.2014 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Trichy.
The appellant is challenging the quantum of penalty and fine imposed by the Commissioner.
2. Heard Shri N. Viswanathan, learned Advocate and Shri Anoop Singh, learned Joint Commissioner for the Revenue; the only issue that arises for consideration is, "whether the fine and penalty imposed on the appellant is excessive?"
3. Sri N. Vishwanathan learned Advocate, who was heard for the appellant categorically, submitted that the importer - appellant has not challenged the valuation re-determined by the Original Authority. However, according to him, the redemption fine under Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 and penalty imposed under Section 112(a) ibid by the Original Authority are very much harsh/exorbitant and needs to be modified/reduced. We also find that the same is the very first grounds of appeal before us. Hence, we are not required to go into the issue of valuation nor are we to examine the correctness or otherwise of the/imposition of 3 Customs Appeal No. 41111 of 2014 penalty; we have to only consider whether the fine and penalty imposed are exorbitant or disproportionate.
4. Per contra, the learned Jt. Commissioner relied upon the findings of the Adjudicating Authority.
5. Both the Ld. Representatives have relied on various judicial precedents in their support wherein, we find that the higher judicial fora have considered the facts and circumstances of case before them and accordingly confirmed/modified the fine and penalty and hence, it is clear that the imposition of fine and penalty varies depending upon the gravity and circumstances of the issue. From the perusal of the impugned order, the learned Original Authority has himself considered certain judicial precedents while imposing fine of 20% and penalty of 10% on the importer. The leniency shown by the Original Authority is for the reason that it was the first import by the appellant before us.
6. We find, in the case on hand, that there is no dispute as regards the violation of the Foreign Trade Policy 2009-2014, particularly para 2.17 as per which, the import of digital multifunctional printers is restricted. It is thus a clear case where violation, as indicated above, stands established for which the importer has to suffer the 4 Customs Appeal No. 41111 of 2014 consequences prescribed in the statute. The statute prescribes confiscation and redemption fine in lieu of the same, but however, there is no hard and fast rule insofar as the quantum of the same is concerned as the same is not prescribed. The same cannot, however, exceed the market value of the goods imported. Hence, considering the facts and circumstances of the present case and since admittedly it was the case of a first import by the appellant, we deem it appropriate to modify/reduce redemption fine and penalty to the following effect. Accordingly, they redemption fine is reduced from Rs.12,00,000/- to Rs.10,00,000/- (Rupees Ten Lakhs only) and the penalty imposed is reduced from Rs.6,00,000/- to Rs.5,00,000/- (Rupees Five Lakhs only).
7. The impugned order stands modified as indicated above and the appeal is partly allowed with consequential benefits, if any, as per law.
(Order pronounced in the open court on 30.09.2024) sd/- sd/-
(M. AJIT KUMAR) (P. DINESHA)
Member (Technical) Member (Judicial)
gs
5
Customs Appeal No. 41111 of 2014