1993 (8) TMI 171

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....re, appeals at Sl. No. (1) and (3) to (11) are taken up together for disposal. 2. The learned lower authority by the respective impugned orders has levied the following redemption fines and penalty on the appellants: Appeal No. Date of import Date of adjudication Value of goods Rs. Redemption fine Rs. Penalty Rs. C/397/91 8-8-1990 8-10-1990 - 60,000 6,000 C/114/93 25-2-1988 2-8-1988 5,17,962 3,84,000 - C/115/93 3-2-1988 -do- 1,04,431 75,000 - C/116/93 30-12-1987 2-8-1988 1,06,313 71,500 - C/119/93 4-4-1988 2-8-1988 1,22,809 91,000 - C/208/91 5-7-1990 10-12-1990 51,837 12,500 - C/209/91 10-8....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....iates v. C.C., Bombay -1988 (34) E.L.T. 367 (Tribunal) -(Para 12) (2) Vinod Gupta v. Collector of Customs -1988 (37) E.L.T. 44 (Cal.) - (Para 38) (3) Bharat Surgical Corpn. v. C.C., Madras -1986 (26) E.L.T. 868 (Tribunal) - (Paras 3,5 & 6) (4) J.K. Synthetics Ltd. & Another v. Union of India - 1981 (8) E.L.T. 328 (Del.) - (Para 15) (5) Rolling Mills v. State of Maharashtra -1984 (17) E.L.T. 109 (Bom.) -(Para 27) (6) Mercantile Express Co. Ltd. v. Assistant Collector of Customs & Others -1978 (2) E.L.T. (J. 552) - (Para 8) (7) Jyoti Impex v. Collector of Customs -1993 (66) E.L.T. 228 (Tribunal) 7. The learned SDR pleaded that the goods were not covered by the licences produced and the appellants are not contesting the sa....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....11(d) could be taken. This clearly shows that the Department had on discovering that the releases of the goods had been wrongly allowed initiated action for setting aside the orders for the release of the goods and for confiscation of the goods under Section 111(d) in the proceedings under Section 129D(4). All the appellants before us excepting M/s. Talacoat Trading Co. were the respondents in those proceedings before the Collector (Appeals). Thus we find that from 1987 the parties concerned were made aware that the Department is not accepting the position in regard to the release of the goods imported against the licences for Designer's Kit and which position has not been contested also before us. In the face of that it cannot be said that....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ced on the same. It has not been shown to us that the redemption fine is more than the market value of the goods and is disproportionate to the margin of profit available. The goods imported are in the nature of stationery items and consumer goods and the redemption fine levied is within 100% ranging from 10% to 75% depending upon the nature of the goods and, therefore, cannot be considered excessive in the facts and circumstances of the case. We, therefore, dismiss the appeals. 9. Before parting with the case, we like to observe that it is surprising how the Departmental authorities over a long period have allowed clearance of the goods like mathematical drawing compasses, erasers, colour pencils, leads, fibre tipped pens, highlighters,....