TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2001 (11) TMI 789
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Appeals) with his impugned order after considering in detail the margin of profit and the case law on the subject came to a conclusion as follows : 26. I have carefully gone through the case records and have considered the submissions made on behalf of the appellants. I find that there is no dispute regarding the two main issues involved in this case - (1) that the subject goods are not pre-mutilated rags, as declared, but old and used complete garments of various types, and (2) that the quantity of the subject goods was found to be in excess of the declared quantity, and hence mis-declared. 27. On the question of the impugned goods found to be old and used garments instead of completely pre-mutilated rags, the appellants have contended that they had placed orders for the declared quantity of "old synthetic woollen rags completely pre-mutilated and fumigated", which had been properly reflected in the relevant Bills of Lading, Commercial Invoice, Packing List, Insurance Certificate, Certificate of Origin and Fumigation Certificate of the Sanitary Authority in USA apart from the invoice of the overseas supplier, packing list etc., and hence in accordance with the impo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
..... 196 9523 Sweater 9523 x 33 = 3,14,259/- 3. 152 7386 Baby Garments 7386 x 35 = 2,58,510/- 4. 15 729 Trouser 729 x 37 = 26,973/- Total 425 20650 7,14,198/- CIF VALUE ASSESSABLE VALUE CIF @ US$ 0.45 CIF Rs. 4,28,849/- US$ 9292.50 Duty Rs. 1,91,066/- CIF Rs. 4,28,848.88 Total Rs. 6,19,915/- A/Value Rs. 4,33,137.37 Duty Rs. 1,91,065.64 MOP Rs. 94,347/- (22%) Clearance : Rs. 52,000/- Rent & Detention : Rs. 1,61,552/- Total : Rs. 2,13,552/- MOP : Rs. 94,347/- Expenses : Rs. 2,13,552/- Rs. (-) 1,19,205/- Redemption Fine : Rs. 85,769.80 (20%) Appellant : M/s. Star Trading B/E No. Sl-118628, Dated 19-9-2000 Goods 450 Bales 21040 Kgs. Sl. No. Bales Weight (Kgs.) Goods Sale Price (Rs.) 1 36 1683 Shirts 1683 x 76 = 1,27,908/- 2. 24 1122 Jacket 1122 x 80 = 89,760/- 3. 96 4489 Top 4489 x 38 = 1,70,582/- 4. 158 7387 Trouser 73....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ants although penalties imposed and redemption find levied much lower for an earlier identical import. Margin of profit same in both cases imposition of redemption find and penalty although discretionary but to be exercised judiciously. We have considered the submissions and have perused the two orders one passed in 11/99 and the present order passed in 2/2000. The order passed in 2/2000 does not bring out any circumstances different as regards change in margin of profit, except that one person has utilised the name of another importer to import the goods. We therefore, cannot find any reason in the present order for imposition of higher penalties. We are aware that imposition of penalty and redemption fine are at the discretion of the adjudicating officer, but he has to take the totality of a particular case into consideration. However, discretion has to be exercised judicially by the adjudicator and he has also to consider the formula prescribed under Section 125 of the Customs Act to determine redemption fine. Redemption fine is related to the margin of profit and for heavy redemption fine of almost 80% as in this case, it has to be established that the margin of profit is subst....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....of the CIF value as per the decision of the Hon'ble Tribunal referred to above. 33. In so far as the quantum of personal penalty is concerned, I find that about 60% penalty has been imposed by the adjudicating authority in respect of all the 3 appellants. Further, on a perusal of the Custom House letter dated 16-10-2001, I get the impression that a higher penalty of 50% of CIF value is being imposed to negate the very purpose of computation of the quantum of redemption fine. Though I refrain from making observations vis-a-vis the quantum of redemption fine and penalty imposed in the case of such appellants, it would be sufficient to observe that the quantum of redemption fine is to be worked out in terms of proviso to Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962, whereas personal penalty is imposable under Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 for offences committed under Section 111 of the Customs Act, 1962 [Sections 111(d) and (m) in the present case]. These two statutory provisions viz. Section 125 and Section 112 of the Customs Act, 1962 are independent of each other and are not complementary in relation to the determination of quantum of redemption fine. The quantum of personal....