2018 (9) TMI 937

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....18 LUD-CUS-001-964- 966-18 350000/ 5000/- 2 C/61220/2018 LUD-CUS-001-964-966-18 400000/- 50000/- 3 C/61221/2018 LUD-CUS-001-964-966-18 400000/- 50000/- 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the appellant filed three bill of entry No. 7553727 dt. 22.11.2016, 7407773 dt. 10.11.2016 and 7315467 dt. 03.11.2016 for import of 191.636 MTs of secondary (used) Alloy Steel Bar falling under tariff item 72284000 of the Customs tariff. The said goods were examined by the officers of the Customs, Ludhiana, along with Chartered Engineer as well as Rajesh Jhon who vide his report dated 15.11.2016 opined that the material imported is scrap since they were defective having cracks, abrasions and surface irregularities like uneven surface an....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ot sustainable in law in view of the various decisions rendered by the Tribunal and the High Court. He further submitted that the said adjudication order was passed in pursuance to the letter dated 02.12.2016 and 22.11.2016 wherein the appellant requested that since the goods were imported for the first time and they were ignorant about the restriction and requested for clearance of the goods at the earliest. He further submitted that the respondent adjudicated the cases by passing separate adjudication orders wherein the goods were ordered to be confiscated under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act, instead of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 contrary to the findings of the adjudicating authority but the adjudicating authority allowed....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pany Vs. Commissioner of Customs, the maximum redemption fine which could have been imposed was only to the extent of differential duty which is Rs. 68,984/- 94042/- and 75832/- respectively. He further submitted that imposition of redemption fine in terms of Section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 which is not mandatory but discretionary and the said discretion has not been exercised in a judicious manner, after arriving at the margin of profit and after considering the facts and circumstances of his case. He further submitted that the respondent has imposed redemption fine which is highly exorbitant and the Hon'ble Tribunal in the catena of judgments had reduced the same considering the fact that the same was on higher side. He further place....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ase of Ms. Bansal Inductomelt Vs. ADC Ludhiana wherein the Ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide Final Order No. ASRCUSTM- PRV-APP-21-15-16 dated 28.04.2015 has been pleased to reduce the redemption fine and penalty in case of similar violation. 6. On the other hand, Ld. AR defended the impugned order and submitted that in the present case there is a violation of the policy and the same has been admitted by the appellant, he further submitted that the redemption fine and penalty imposed on the appellant is not on a higher side and has been imposed after considering the value of the goods imported by the appellant. He further submitted that there is no need to see the margin of profit while imposing the redemption fine and penalty and only the va....