TaxTMI Login
Just a moment...
Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search
When case Id is present, search is done only for this
of 
of 
No Folders have been created
Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?
NOTE:
of of 
All Case Laws
of of All Case Laws
Note
Bookmark
Share
Don't have an account? Register Here
of <h1>Revenue's Customs Appeal Dismissed: Tribunal Upholds Commissioner's Decision on Fine & Penalty</h1> <h3>Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin Versus M/s. R.R. Traders</h3> Commissioner of Customs, Tuticorin Versus M/s. R.R. Traders - TMI Issues Involved:1. Legitimacy of the declared value of imported used tyres.2. Confiscation and redemption fine imposed on the imported tyres.3. Imposition of penalty on the importer.4. Justification of the reduction in redemption fine and penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals).Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:1. Legitimacy of the declared value of imported used tyres:The Assistant Commissioner rejected the declared value of USD 30,429 (Rs. 14,19,513) for 1844 used tyres imported under Bill of Entry No. 482275 dated 23.03.2010. The value was re-determined as USD 33,846.4 (Rs. 15,78,935) under Rule 9 of Customs Valuation Rules, 2007 read with Section 14 of Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) upheld the re-determined value, noting that the value declared by the importer was significantly lower than the estimated value by the Chartered Engineer, which was accepted by the appellants.2. Confiscation and redemption fine imposed on the imported tyres:The Assistant Commissioner confiscated the 1843 used tyres valued at Rs. 15,78,935 under Section 111(d) & 111(m) of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. However, an option was given to the importer to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 3,00,000 under Section 125 of Customs Act. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 3,00,000 to Rs. 1,60,000, following the ratio of the CESTAT Bangalore Bench in similar cases.3. Imposition of penalty on the importer:The Assistant Commissioner imposed a penalty of Rs. 2,00,000 on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner (Appeals) reduced the penalty to Rs. 80,000, aligning with the precedents where penalties were fixed at a percentage of the enhanced value of the goods.4. Justification of the reduction in redemption fine and penalty by the Commissioner (Appeals):The Revenue argued that the Commissioner (Appeals) wrongly relied on the CESTAT Bangalore Bench's decision and contended that the reduction in fine and penalty was not justified given the high profit margins of restricted goods like used tyres. However, the Tribunal noted that the Commissioner (Appeals) acted within his discretion as provided under Section 128 and 128A of the Customs Act, 1962, which allows the appellate authority to confirm, modify, or annul the decision or order appealed against. The Tribunal upheld the Commissioner (Appeals)'s decision, stating that the reduction in fine and penalty was in accordance with the established legal principles and precedents.Conclusion:The appeal filed by the Revenue was dismissed, and the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) was upheld. The Tribunal found no merit in the Revenue's challenge to the reduced redemption fine and penalty, affirming that the Commissioner (Appeals) had acted within his legal discretion. The decision emphasized the principle that the appellate authority steps into the shoes of the adjudicating authority and has the power to modify orders, including those related to fines and penalties.
TaxTMI 