TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2010 (11) TMI 362
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e background to some extent. These appeals were disposed of by this Bench by order dated 10-2-2006 [2010 (262) E.L.T. 351 (Tri.-Mum.)], wherein the Commissioner's order was set aside in so far as it related to the goods (rough diamonds) in respect of which no Bills of Entry had been filed but the confiscation ordered by the Commissioner in respect of the consignments of diamonds for which Bills of Entry had been filed was upheld with option for redemption thereof against payment of fine @ 3% of the CIF value. This bench had also reduced the quanta of penalties imposed on the appellants. Two of these appellants (importers of rough diamonds) moved the Hon'ble High Court for implementation of the Tribunal's order dated 10-2-2006, while the department filed appeals against the adverse part of the Tribunal's order. The department challenged the Tribunal's decision relating to the diamonds not covered by Bills of Entry. They also wanted the quantum of redemption fine to be increased. The Writ Petition filed by the parties and the appeals filed by the Revenue came to be disposed of by a common order dated 31-7-2009 [2009 (244) E.L.T. 527 (Bom.)] wherein : (a) the penalties imposed on the ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nce presented for clearance is valid on the date of import in terms of para 4.15 of the Handbook of Procedures 1997-2002. Contextually, the learned counsel has also fairly pointed out that the decision in H. Kumar Gems (supra) is under challenge by the department. He has also pointed out that the appellate court has not granted stay of operation of the said decision. In the present case, it is submitted, Replenishment Licences worth Rs. 32 crores, which were valid on the date of importation of the diamonds in question, were produced by the importers before the department. The Tribunal's decision in H. Kumar Gems case was also cited before the adjudicating authority. It is submitted that the learned Commissioner did not state valid reasons for rejecting the plea for clearance of the goods under the Replenishment Licences. It is also submitted that the CPUs and office records (including debit notes) seized from the appellants' premises were not returned to them and consequently they were not able to counter effectively the allegations raised in the show-cause notice. It is further submitted that the goods were disposed of by the department illegally during the pendency of these appea....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....views expressed and the findings recorded by the Hon'ble High Court in its earlier judgment dated 31-7-2009 on other issues, not affected by the physical presence or absence of the confiscated diamonds, are acceptable as binding. The concern of the appellants, at present, is that those diamonds for which no Bill of Entry had been filed were also disposed of by the department along with other diamonds which were covered by Bills of Entry. At this stage, the prayer of the appellants is that the sale proceeds at appropriate value be ordered to be returned to them. Insofar as the diamonds for which no Bill of Entry was filed are concerned, the importers must at least get the CIF value as on the date of seizure. As regards the other diamonds which were covered by Bills of Entry, the importers must at least receive the CIF value declared in the Bills of Entry. According to the counsel, the importers are also entitled to get interest on these amounts at reasonable rate from the relevant date to the date of refund. In this connection, once again, it is pointed out that, in the case of Northern Plastics (supra), the Supreme Court granted interest @ 12%, and, in the case of Kailash Ribbon Fa....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is an order of confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act which was affirmed by the Hon'ble High Court in judgment dated 31-7-2009. At this stage, the appellants have not pressed their grievance against such confiscation of the goods. The question before us is whether, in lieu of confiscation, a redemption fine should be imposed and, if so, to what extent. We find that the Hon'ble High Court, after detailed examination of the circumstances of the case, held that 20% of the value of the goods would be a reasonable redemption fine under Section 125 of the Act. Learned counsel have pleaded for reduction of the quantum of fine on the ground that the disposal of the goods by the department virtually denied to the appellants an opportunity to make profit out of sale of the goods in the market. This argument is specious and not acceptable. Section 125 of the Customs Act lays down the contours for determination of the quantum of fine to be imposed in lieu of confiscation of any goods imported into India. These contours are not based on the premise that the goods will physically be available to the importer for sale in the market. On the other hand, this Tribunal and appellate co....