2007 (10) TMI 490

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ently found that, the imported goods (20936 kgs. of old and used worm clothings)  were declared to be of the value of Rs. 3,11,404.80, but their assessable value was Rs. 5,96,676/-. The said assessable value was acceptable to the importer. It has also not been contested that the goods were imported without the required licence/permission. The import of the goods was not allowed without the required licence/permission. The goods were imported in contravention of the Foreign Trade Policy 2004-09. The importer had accepted the assessable value proposed by the Appraising Officer. The authorities have, therefore, rightly held that, the goods were liable to be confiscated and penalty was required to be imposed. 3. The importer had plea....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....1962, to the effect that the redemption fine shall not exceed the market price of the goods confiscated, less, in the case of the imported goods, the duty chargeable thereon. In the context of this provision, a Division Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Jagson International Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, Delhi, reported in 2006 (199) E.L.T. 553 (T-Del), has held that, there would be justification for imposing fine in lieu of confiscation which is to the extent of market price of the goods confiscated, in the following terms : "11.1 Section 125 of the said Act provides for option to pay fine in lieu of confiscation. Under the proviso to Section 125(1), it is, inter alia, provided that such fine shall not exceed the market price of the....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....as the market value is normally more than the CIF value of the goods plus duty." 6.1 The value of the goods assessed at Rs. 5,96,676/- was never challenged and was, in fact, accepted by the importer. If that be so, the redemption fine of Rs. 2 lacs, as imposed by the adjudicating authority, was far below the market value of the goods. There is no valid reason given by the Commissioner (Appeals), as to why has he chosen to interfere with such a lenient order of imposition of redemption fine passed by the adjudicating authority. The interference by the Appellate Authority would not be warranted in such cases in the absence of any illegality or irregularity or impropriety committed by the adjudicating authority in making the order. In the pre....