S.S.P. International Enterprises vs Commr. Of Cus. on 4 August, 2003
Even in a case where there was no misdeclaration of value, a high redemption fine was imposed. Ld. Counsel further point out that any determination of fine without reference to the market price of the goods and the margin of profit in the sale of the goods cannot be sustained. In respect of penalty also, it is contended that no reasonable basis has been disclosed in any of the impugned orders. Ld. Counsel rely on the decision of the Tribunal rendered in the case of Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai v. Auto World - 2000 (122) E.L.T. 500 and also the decision of the Tribunal's Larger Bench in Neesha Plast Industries v. Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai - 2000 (118) E.L.T. 255. In the case of Auto World, it was held that it was necessary on the part of the adjudicating authority to state reasons for arriving at a particular quantum of fine to be imposed in the facts and circumstances of the case. In the case considered by the Larger Bench, it was noted that the adjudicating authority had imposed a redemption fine which was 200% of the value of the confiscated goods and also that the fine was imposed without any discussion on the margin of profit. The Larger Bench reduced the fine from 200% to 100% of the value. Correspondingly the penalty imposed by the lower authority on the importer was reduced from Rs. 65,000/- to Rs. 40,000/-. Relying on these decisions, counsel pray for reduction of fine and penalty in these appeals.