CESTAT Mumbai Upholds Confiscation of Marble Slabs; Reduces Redemption Fine and Penalty

The Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI upheld the confiscation of the imported marble slabs under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 due to misdeclaration of value. However, the Tribunal found the redemption fine and penalty imposed by the adjudicating authority excessive and reduced them. The redemption fine was reduced from &8377; 16 lakhs to &8377; 10 lakhs, while the penalty was reduced from &8377; 10 lakhs to &8377; 5,00,000. The impugned order was upheld with modifications, and the appeal was disposed of accordingly with any consequential relief.

---

---

Issues: Redemption fine and penalty imposed on irregular importation of marble slabs.

In this case, the Appellate Tribunal CESTAT MUMBAI heard an appeal against Order-in-Original related to the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the irregular importation of marble slabs. The appellant had declared a value of US $22/sqm for the marble slabs, but the contemporaneous value was higher at US $33/sqm. The customs authorities raised concerns about the valuation discrepancy and conducted a market survey to ascertain the margin of profit. The adjudicating authority determined a higher value for the imported goods, leading to the discharge of customs duty by the appellant. The Tribunal agreed that the imported consignment was liable for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 due to misdeclaration of value. However, the Tribunal disagreed with the redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority, considering it excessive at &8377; 16 lakhs compared to the redetermined value of &8377; 47,21,686. The Tribunal, following a consistent view, reduced the redemption fine to &8377; 10 lakhs, which is 20% of the enhanced CIF value.

Regarding the penalty, the Tribunal upheld the confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, considering the excessive nature of the penalty imposed at &8377; 10 lakhs, the Tribunal reduced it to &8377; 5,00,000, which is 10% of the combined CIF value. The impugned order was upheld with modifications to the redemption fine and penalty. The appeal was disposed of accordingly, with any consequential relief. The operative part of the judgment was pronounced in court by the Tribunal.

---