TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
1999 (4) TMI 308
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s) has upheld the said Order-in-Originals and have sought to distinguish this Tribunal's Order No . 1600-1601/98, dated 25-8-1998 in the case of H.M. Enterprises which had been cited before and in which the Tribunal had confirmed a redemption fine of 85% of CIF value. The learned Commissioner has rejected the appeals before him on the ground that the redemption fine is to be based on the margin of profit which was considered by the Orders-in-Original while imposing 100% RF. He has also held that since no heavy demurrage were paid, therefore lower redemption fine would not be correct. 2. Heard Shri A.K. Jayaraj, learned Advocate for the appellants who submits that the issue is a covered one in as much as this Tribunal vide Final Order ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....submissions and records of the case. On a perusal of the Order-in-Originals find that the dispute adjudicated therein was one covering the unauthorised import. There was no dispute on the value of the goods as held in the Order-in-Original. However neither in the findings portion nor in the order portion of the Order-in-Original has the original authority given any indication as to how the RF was computed at 100% of the CIF value. I find that because of this the submission of the learned Advocate needs favourable consideration, that the original authority if it wanted to choose to deviate from the standard practice of 85% RF, should have placed before the importers the reasons for enhancing the said RF to 100% by placing before the importer....