2023 (10) TMI 830

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....nder Customs Tariff Heading No. 72103090. The importer namely Gamesha Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd (GRPL) imported the said goods declaring a price of US $ 398 per MT. As against, the Minimum Import Price prescribed by DGFT US $ 643 Per MT. The goods were confiscated by the original adjudicating authority for violating of import policy. The original adjudicating authority revised the assessable value of the goods based on Minimum Import Price and demanded Customs Duty on the said revised price. The original adjudicating authority also imposed a redemption fine amounting to Rs. 3 Crores and imposed penalty of Rs. 1 Crores under Section 112(a) of Customs Act, 1962. 3. The Commissioner (Appeals) relying on the earlier order of Tribunal in the case of Crystal Granite & Marble Pvt. Ltd vide Order No. A/11657-11659/2018 dated 06.08.2018 came to the conclusion that the assessable value cannot be revised on account of Minimum Import Price fixed by DGFT. Relying on the decision of Tribunal in appellants own case, the Commissioner (Appeals), revised the redemption fine and penalty drastically on the lower side on the ground that CESTAT in its earlier order had done the same. 4. This appeal....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....pearing for the respondent has relied on the decision of Tribunal in their own case M/s Siemens Gamesha Renewable Power Pvt. Ltd Vs. Commissioner of Customs, Mundra reported at 2019 (365) ELT 631 (Tri-Ahmd.). It was argued that the goods was not prohibited but only restricted. Learned Counsel further argued that, it has mandatory for the lower authorities to follow the decision of the higher forum as has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of KAMLAKSHI FINANCE CORPORATION LTD.- reported in 1991 (55) ELT 433 (S.C.). He further argued that it has been held by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SANT LAL GUPTA V. MODERN CO-OP. G.H. SOCIETY LTD-2010 (262) ELT 6 (S.C.) that it is not desirable or permissible for the coordinate benches to disapprove of the earlier decisions and take view contrary to it. 5.1 Learned appellant also argued that no confiscation could have been done as the goods are not available for confiscation as the same have been cleared. He relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Apex Court in case of WESTON Component Ltd-2000 (1) STR 26=2000 (115) ELT 278 (S.C.) 6. We have considered the rival submission. We find that the instant case involves import of....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....g aside the proposition of the Order-In-Original to levy of Customs Duty at assessable value equal to the Minimum Import Price. The Commissioner (Appeals) has in this regard followed the earlier decision of Tribunal regarding valuation of such goods imported in violation of Minimum Import Price requirement. No appeal has been filed by Revenue and therefore, as far as the valuation of goods is concern the declared value of the goods stands accepted. 8. In case of INDO-CHINA STEAM NAVIGATION CO. LTD.-1983 (13) ELT 1392 (S.C). Following has been observed. "33. In this connection, we may mention one consideration which has weighed in our mind. It is true that modern criminology does not encourage the imposition of severe or savage sentences against criminals, because the deterrent or punitive aspect of punishment is no longer treated as a valid consideration in the administration of Criminal law. But it must be remembered that ordinary offences with which the normal criminal law of the country deals are committed by persons either under the pressure of provoked and unbalanced emotions, or as a result of adverse environments and circumstances, and so, while dealing with thes....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....ddi v. Commissioner of Central Excise, Gurgaon), decided on 18-11-2013 [2014 (300) E.L.T. 1486 (P & H) as well of the Madras High Court in the case of Commissioner of Customs Tuticorn v. M/s. Sai Copiers and others [2008-TIOL-98-HC-MAD-CUS = 2008 (226) E.L.T. 486 (P&H)]. Accordingly, order dated 28-6-2013 passed by the Tribunal is modified to the extent as indicated above." 9.1 In this case too while the earlier order in case of a different assessee was taken note of but redemption fine was enhanced for repeat offence. In this case the offence has been repeated five times earlier and the instant case being the sixth violation. 10. On the above, it is apparent that the key factor for determination the quantum of redemption fine is that it should discourage the importer from repeating the offence. The general consensus of the higher Court is that the redemption fine should be sufficient to discourage people from violating the law repeatedly. It is seen that appellant has already violated exim policy in following cases. Sr. No. Appeal No. Bill of Entry No/Date Minimum Import Price Notified for the goods per MT (US $) (A) Declared Value US $/MT (B) Degree of vio....