2018 (7) TMI 81

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....espondent. ORDER Per Bench The facts of the case are that the appellant had filed Bill of Entry dated 21.03.2009 for import of goods declared as 440 Nos. of Mobile Phones with declared assessable value of Rs. 12,40,609/-. However, on examination, the consignment revealed the presence of excess quantity of 140 Nos. of Mobile Phones which were valued at Rs. 3,87,310/-. On adjudication, the ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....r confiscation; that therefore, only the offending goods, namely 140 nos. Mobile phones valued at Rs. 3,87,310/- can be confiscated, that in the instant case, even the redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- imposed under Section 125 of the Act is not commensurate with the value of the confiscated goods and is not justified. Further, the appellants have all along submitted that they were not aware of th....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....s. 19,000/-, the quantum of redemption fine of Rs. 2,00,000/- imposed is surely not commensurate with the differential duty liability. Further, while deciding the quantum of redemption fine, the facts and circumstances including the margin of profit, market price of the goods confiscated etc., have to be taken into account. There is no such exercise forth-coming in the impugned order. This being s....