VKJ Latest News Update

VKJ Law Offices of Vinay K. Jain Advocates & Solicitors

Cus – Redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% of value of imported goods is appropriate in cases of violation of EXIM policy provisions: CESTAT

2019-TIOL-2319-CESTAT-KOL

IN THE CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SERVICE TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
REGIONAL BENCH, KOLKATA
COURT NO. I

Cus. Misc. Application (COD) No. 76408 of 2018 AND
Cus. Misc. Application No. 75925 of 2019 AND
Cus. S. P. No. 76409 of 2018 
AND
Cus. Appeal No. 77546 of 2018

Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. KOL/CUS(PORT)/AA/2124-2126/2017, Dated: 18.12.2017
Passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Kolkata

Date of Hearing: 20.06.2019
Date of Decision: 20.06.2019

COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS (PORT)
KOLKATA, 15/1, STRAND ROAD, KOLKATA-700001

Vs

M/s S J IMPEX
329, KRISHNA NAGAR, JOURA PHATAK
PUNJAB-143001

Appellant Rep by: Shri A K Singh, AC (AR)
Respondent Rep by: None

CORAM: P K Choudhary, Member (J)

Cus – The assessee imported used and worn unmutilated and fumigated mix cloth and five Bills of entry were filed covering the consignments of import – At the time of original assessment, the declared value of imported goods was enhanced from CIF price of US$ 1.10 per kg. to US$ 1.316 per kg. – The original adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of imported goods for violation of Import Trade Control restrictions and the goods were confiscated under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962 – He also imposed redemption fine under Section 125 of the Act @ 30% and personal penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act, 11% (Approx.) – The Commissioner (A) has ordered reduction of redemption fine and personal penalty on the basis of ratio laid down by Three Member Bench of CESTAT, Delhi in the case of Omex International – 2015-TIOL-582-CESTAT-DEL – The Three Member Bench has taken the view that redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% of the value of the imported goods, would be appropriate in case of import violating Exim Policy Provisions – No reason found to interfere with the findings of Commissioner (A) on the basis of such decision – The impugned order is upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected: CESTAT

Appeal rejected

Case law cited:

Omex International Vs. commissioner of Cusoms, New Delhi – 2015-TIOL-582-CESTAT-DEL… Para 8

MO/75920-75922/2019
FINAL ORDER NO. 75638/2019

Per: P K Choudhary:

The present Miscellaneous Application has been filed by the Appellant for condoning the delay in filing the appeal before the Tribunal.

2. In view of the reasons as explained in the Miscellaneous Application, the delay of 97 days in filing the appeal is condoned. The Miscellaneous Application (COD) is allowed.

3. When the matter was called, none appeared on behalf of the Respondent. However, I observe that the present issue involved in this appeal, lies in a narrow compass. Accordingly, the appeal is taken up for final hearing today itself with the consent of Ld. AR for the Revenue.

4. The respondent imported used and worn unmutilated and fumigated mix cloth and five Bills of entry were filed covering the consignments of the import. At the time of original assessment, the declared value of the imported goods was enhanced from CIF price of US$ 1.10 per kg. to US$ 1.316 per kg. The original adjudicating authority ordered confiscation of the imported goods for violation of Import Trade Control restrictions and the goods were confiscated under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. He also imposed redemption fine under Section 125 of the Act @ 30% and personal penalty under Section 112(a) of the Act, 11% (Approx.).

5. The order passed by the original adjudicating authority was challenged before the Commissioner (Appeals) by the importer. The First Appellate Authority, by passing the impugned order, upheld the order of confiscation and enhancement of value. However, he reduced the redemption fine and penalty imposed to 10% and 5% respectively. Revenue has challenged this order by filing the present appeals with the prayer that the order of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) reducing redemption fine and personal penalty, merits review.

6. Heard Shri A. K. Singh, Ld. AR on behalf of the Revenue. He submitted that the redemption fine and personal penalty merit to be increased in view of the fact that the respondent is a frequent importer of used and worn unmutilated and fumigated mix cloth in violation of ITC Regulations. He also submitted that a high amount of redemption fine and penalty will act as a deterrent for such imports by such unscrupulous persons.

7. After hearing the Ld. AR for the revenue and on perusal of record, I find that the enhancement of value has been ordered by the First Appellate Authority on the basis of concurrence given by the importer for such enhancement. There is no challenge to the order of confiscation, but Revenue is challenging the quantum of redemption fine and penalty, which stand reduced by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals).

8. On perusal of the impugned order, I note that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has ordered reduction of redemption fine and personal penalty on the basis of ratio laid down by the Three Member Bench of CESTAT, Delhi in the case of Omex International Vs. commissioner of Cusoms, New Delhi reported in 2015 (328) ELT 579(Tri.-Del.) = 2015-TIOL-582-CESTAT-DEL. The Three Member Bench has taken the view that redemption fine of 10% and penalty of 5% of the value of the imported goods, would be appropriate in case of import violating Exim Policy Provisions. I find no reason to interfere with the findings of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) on the basis of such decision.

9. In the result, the impugned order is upheld and the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open court)

Leave a Reply

Close Menu
%d bloggers like this: