TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (1) TMI 534
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... No.C / 689 / 2008 filed by it while partially allowing Appeal No. C. / 664 / 2008 filed by the respondent. Brief facts of the case necessary for adjudication of the appeal are that against value declared by the appellant of imported consignment of old and used frame of copier incorporating optical system , 2000 & 3000 series at Rs. 14,09,535/-, vide bill of entry No.0016, dated 24.01.2008, the respondent on the basis of inquiry formed an opinion that the consignment consisted of different canon made model, that the value of the goods as per contemporaneous import data should be Rs. 17,33,555/- and since the appellant had imported machines without getting licence from the authorities as required for import of second hand photocopier mach....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... therefore, the goods in question were liable for confiscation and the appellant liable to fine and penalty. While holding that dose of redemption fine and penalty would deter illegality as also the same being perpetuated, the Tribunal restored the adjudication order and upheld redemption fine, but reduced the amount of penalty from Rs. 17.00 lacs to Rs. 8.5 lacs. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that although as per commercial invoice and packing list the goods were copier machines incorporating Optical System yet the machines were not simple photocopier machines, but different Cannon made model as per survey carried out by Chartered Engineer. The Trib....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion should be exercised judicially and in a consistent manner, therefore, the respondent could not impose penalty from 15% to 20% in one case and 100% in another case. In the light of above, it was contended that the amount of fine and penalty needed to be reduced substantially. Learned counsel further contended that there were several judgments, where such machines in similar factual situations were allowed to be redeemed on a fine of 10% of the value of goods and by imposing penalty equally to 5% of the said value. Learned counsel for the appellant while referring to the decision of the Commissioner of Central Excise(Appeals), Delhi-III, pointed out that the learned Commissioner had taken into account cases in which the department in a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ed to be modified on the ground of the same being unduly, harsh and unjustified. After addressing the above arguments, counsel for the appellant submits that he confines his plea to reduction of redemption fine and penalty. On the other hand, on behalf of the respondent-Department, it was urged that imposing of redemption fine and penalty had compulsorily to be prohibitive so as to dissuade import of restricted goods and to make the same prohibitive and non-profitable. Thus, the main grievance of the appellant is of there being no uniformity in imposition of fine and penalty by the Tribunal and even in the cases of similar situated importers different yardsticks having been applied, of the imposition of fine being so heavy as to make ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....elied on the earlier order of the Tribunal in the case of Sri Venkatesh Enterprises Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Chennai [2005(192) ELT 818 - [2005-TIOL-363-CESTAT-DEL)] wherein the quantum of redemption fine imposed in lieu of confiscation of second hand photocopiers valued at Rs. 17.7 lakhs was restricted to Rs. 2.5 lacs and the quantum of penalty was restricted to Rs. 85,000/-. The same was followed in the case of the respondents also by the Tribunal. The fixation of the quantum of redemption is an exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of the authorities under the Customs Act. The Court can interfere only in the circumstances in which it was demonstrated before it that the order of the Tribunal is thoroughly arbitrary, whimsical and res....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pier machines etc.; so is the case in the present appeals. 17. In these appeals, the Tribunal had noticed that the appellant had not cited any comparable cases where redemption fine had been reduced to 10% and penalty to 5%. The appellant citing these judgments of the Tribunal has convincingly shown that there have been instances, where the Tribunal had considerably reduced the penalty. It is no doubt true that a repeat violator has to be imposed appropriate fine and penalty in order that the same acts as a deterrent to the repeated violation of law, however, at the same time, the Tribunal could not lose site of the fact that in similar cases it had reduced redemption fine to 10% and penalty to 5%. Without going into the issue whether....