Customs, Excise and Gold Tribunal - Tamil Nadu
Thukral Optics (P) Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Customs, Chennai on 3 October, 2001
Equivalent citations: 2001(136)ELT49(TRI-CHENNAI)
JUDGMENT
S.L. Peeran
1. The short question that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the Commissioner (Appeals) was justified in reducing the fine from Rs. 1,88,480/- to Rs. 45,000/-, and setting side the penalty. The appellants are not satisfied with this reduction in the quantum of fine to Rs. 45,000/- and seeks further reduction in the quantum. The learned Commissioner (Appeals) while reducing the fine to Rs. 45,000/- has taken into consideration various factors including the plea that the factory was closed for want of raw materials for two months and for seven months the factory could not work for want of raw materials and the appellants had to incur expenditure on account of salary, maintenance of the factory etc. thereby they have been put to severe financial burden due to long delay on the part of the department in the matter of adjudication. He has considered the appellants' plea of length and after taking into consideration the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Jain M/s. Jain Exports Pvt. Ltd. v. UOI reported in 1990 (47) ELT 213 (SC) and in the case of Badruddin Jiwani v. Collector reported in 1990 (47) ELT 161 (SC), set aside the penalty imposed on the appellants and reduced the fine to Rs. 45,000/-.
2. The learned Counsel for the appellants submits that the seized goods are freely importable as the goods are parts of Spectacle Frames and cannot be considered as completed spectacle frames. The goods in question are described as Gold with DEMI coating frame (side & front). The goods were confiscated on the ground that the goods are consumer goods and required a licence for their importation. He submits that the appellants were under the bona fide belief that the goods are only parts of spectacle frames and hence, the fine be set aside. Further there was no mala fide intention in the import of the goods without a licence and the appellants were the actual users of the goods.
3. Shri A. Jayachandran, learned DR for the department submits that the item was complete spectacle frames and required a licence. Appellants have clearly violated the policy in importing 250 dozens of spectacle frames and the adjudicating authority had imposed a fine of Rs. 1,80,000/-. He further submits that the Commissioner (Appeals) was very generous and have taken into consideration various factors and has considerably reduced the fine From Rs. 1,80,000/- Rs. 45,000/-. He also submits that the Bill of Entry itself showed "Gold with DEMI Coating Frame (side & front) and they were completed frames.
4. On consideration of the submissions made and on perusal of the impugned order, we find that the Commissioner (Appeals) has given a detailed finding on facts that the imported goods are consumer goods and required a licence. He has also noted that the Bill of Entry described the goods as "Gold With DEMI Coating Frame (Side & front). Therefore, in terms of Rule 2A of the Interpretative Rules, it was held that the goods are complete product since it satisfied the essential characteristics of the finished product. Therefore, as per the Policy, a licence was required for their importation whereas the goods have been imported without a specific licence and as such the goods are confiscable. However, the Commissioner (Appeals) has taken into consideration various pleas put forth by the appellants and reduced the fine considerably from Rs. 1,80,000/- to Rs. 45,000/- and set aside the penalty and while doing so, he has relied upon the judgments noted above. We find that in the case of Harpreet International reported in 2000 (120) ELT 529 (Larger bench), it was held that imposition of fine of 85% of the c.i.f. value is justified. In view of above we do not find any justification for further reduction in the quantum of fine. In this view of the matter, the appeal is dismissed.
(Dictated and pronounced in open Court)