2008 (2) TMI 104

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ection 111(d) for want of specific licence required for import of secondhand goods, Section 111(f) for non-filing of IGM for the vessel and Section 111(m) for undervaluation, with an option to redeem the same on payment of a fine of Rs. 25,00,000/- and has also imposed a penalty of Rs. 5,00,000/- upon the importer under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. 2. We have heard both sides. 3. The import of the secondhand yacht is restricted as per para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy, 2004-09 and since the importer did not possess a specific import licence, we uphold the liability of the vessel to confiscation under the provisions of Section 111(d) of the Act.  As regards Section 111(f), we note that the steamer agents, M/s. Sea ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....e of similar vessels (45' Prout Cataraman) at much higher prices.  The Commissioner has subsequently verified the submission of the importer that Dreamcatcher Prout 1996 model valued at US$ 4,59,000/- (relied upon by the Revenue) was not sold in 2004, as claimed by the Revenue, and it was still shown as available for sale on the website and the importer's contention was accepted.  Further, in its reply dated 19.7.2006, the importer has enclosed information downloaded from the website on prices of different sizes of Prout Cataraman boats including those of 45' Prout and it is seen that the prices fluctuate, for example, the price quoted on the internet for a 1995 model of 45' Prout Cataraman is US$ 3,10,000/-, while....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....fine of Rs. 25 lakhs, which was vehemently assailed by the appellant.  Section 125(2) of the Customs Act, 1962 casts a duty upon an adjudicating authority to furnish reasons for imposing a specified amount by way of redemption fine.  The power to impose such fine is a discretionary one and it has to be exercised on the existence of relevant factors such as market survey, margin of profit etc.  In view of the fact that we have set aside the finding of violation of the provisions of Section 111(f) and (m) and are only upholding the liability to confiscation for contravention of the provisions of Section 111(d), we reduce the fine imposed upon the appellants to Rs. 5,00,000/-, keeping in view the fact that the vessel was for his....