2022 (2) TMI 469 - AT - Customs

Customs Tribunal affirms reduced redemption fine and drops penalty. Revenue's appeal dismissed.

C.C. Icd Patparganj Versus RRK Import Export

The Tribunal upheld the decision of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) to reduce the redemption fine from &8377; 17,00,000/- to &8377; 1,00,000/- and ... Quantum of redemption fine and penalty - misdeclaration of description and value - goods were declared as glass beads unfinished but on examination, the goods appeared to be solid glass ball without hole and glass chatons instead of glass beads unfinished - HELD THAT:- The quantity declared by the respondent in weight and there is no variation on the weight of the consignment and there is no allegation in the show cause notice for misdeclaration of quantity. In that circumstances, the charge of misdeclaration of quantity is rightly dropped by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal). It is a fact on record that the declared price has been accepted by the respondent on which they have paid the differential duty of ₹ 18,00,000/- (approx.) therefore, considering the duty paid by the appellant and margin of profit, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) has rightly reduced the redemption fine from ₹ 17,00,000/- to 1,00,000/-. The redemption fine imposed by the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) is sufficient in the interest of justice. Further, in the impugned order, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) recorded the finding that there is no finding given by the adjudicating authority for imposing the penalty under Section 117 of the Act. In that circumstances, the Ld. Commissioner(Appeal) has rightly dropped the penalty against the respondent. There are no infirmity in the impugned order - appeal dismissed - decided against Revenue. Issues: Misdeclaration of goods description and value, reduction of redemption fine, imposition of penalty under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962.Misdeclaration of Goods Description and Value:The case involved a misdeclaration of goods where the appellant declared the imported goods as 'glass beads unfinished' but upon examination, they were found to be solid glass balls and glass chatons. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) upheld the misdeclaration of description and value, but found no misdeclaration of quantity. The assessable value was redetermined to be higher than the declared value, leading to a redemption fine of &8377; 17,00,000/- and a penalty of &8377; 1,00,000/- under Section 117 of the Customs Act, 1962. The Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) reduced the redemption fine to &8377; 1,00,000/- and dropped the penalty due to the absence of findings for imposing it. The Revenue appealed against this decision.Reduction of Redemption Fine:The Ld. AR for the Revenue argued that the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) erred in reducing the redemption fine and dropping the penalty. He contended that the declared value was significantly lower than the enhanced value, justifying the higher redemption fine. Citing a Supreme Court decision, he emphasized that the reduction in fine should not be arbitrary. However, as there was no misdeclaration of quantity and the declared price had been accepted by the appellant, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) considered the duty paid and profit margin in reducing the redemption fine to &8377; 1,00,000/-. The Tribunal found this reduction appropriate based on the circumstances and upheld the decision.Imposition of Penalty under Section 117:The Ld. AR argued that the penalty under Section 117 of the Act should not have been dropped, as there was a misdeclaration of goods description and value. However, the Tribunal noted that the adjudicating authority did not provide findings to support the imposition of the penalty. Consequently, the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) rightly dropped the penalty against the appellant. The Tribunal upheld this decision, stating that in the absence of proper findings for imposing the penalty, dropping it was justified in the interest of justice.Conclusion:After considering the arguments and reviewing the records, the Tribunal found no fault in the impugned order. The decision of the Ld. Commissioner (Appeal) to reduce the redemption fine and drop the penalty was upheld. The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the impugned order was upheld as being sufficient and in accordance with the law.