C.C., New Delhi (Icd-Tkd) vs Seema Enterprises

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.CC(A)/Cus/ICD/617-618/2013 dated 30.09.2013 passed by the CC(A), New Delhi]

For approval and signature:

HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

1. Whether Press reporters may be allowed to see the

order for publication as per Rule 27 of the CESTAT

(Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2. Whether it should be released under Rule 27 of the

CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in

any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether Their Lordships wish to see the fair copy

of the Order?

4. Whether Order is to be circulated to the Departmental

authorities?

__________________________________________________

C.C., New Delhi (ICD-TKD) Appellant

Vs.

Seema Enterprises  Respondent

Present for the Appellant :Mr. G.R. Singh, DR

Present for the Respondent: Ms. Reena Rawal, Advocate

Coram: HONBLE MR. S.K. MOHANTY, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing/Decision: 04.06.2015

FINAL ORDER NO. 52938/2015

PER: S.K. MOHANTY

The Revenue-appellant is in appeal against the impugned order dated 30th September, 2013 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), IGI Airport, New Delhi, wherein redemption fine of Rs.6,50,000/- imposed in the adjudication order was reduced to Rs.1,00,000/- and penalty imposed under section 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962 for Rs.3,50,000 was reduced to Rs.2,25,000/-.

2. The brief facts of the case, leading to this appeal are as follows:-

The importer  respondent imported the goods stuffed in the container and filed the Bill of Entry, declaring the contents in the container. However, on examination of the said container by SIIB, it was detected that the importer had imported excess quantity of goods as against the declaration made by them in the Bill of Entry dated 26.11.2011. The investigation conducted by the Customs Department culminated in the adjudication order, wherein the value declared in the Bill of Entry by the respondent was rejected and on the basis of subsequent information furnished by the respondent, the duty liability on the imported goods was re-determined/assessed. The differential duty liability was computed in the adjudicating order as Rs.2,82,800/-. Besides confirmation of the differential duty demand, the adjudication order also confiscated the imported goods and provided option to the importer to redeem the goods on payment of redemption fine of Rs.6,50,000/-. Further, penalty of Rs.3,50,000/- under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act has been imposed in the said order on the respondent.

3. So far as the merits of the case are concerned, the respondent had not filed any appeal against the said adjudication order. However, in appeal before the Commissioner, the grievance of the appellant was with regard to the quantum of penalty and redemption fine imposed by the adjudicating authority. The appeal was disposed of by the Commissioner (Appeals) vide the impugned order dated 30.09.2013. The quantum of penalty and redemption fine were reduced to Rs.2,25,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively in the impugned order. The reasons assigned in the impugned order for reduction in the quantum of penalty and redemption fine amount were that the value declared by the importer in the new invoice was found to be correct and accepted by the assessing authority and that the assessed dues were paid promptly by the importer. Further, keeping in view the possible margin of profit expected from the imported goods and also incurrence of demurrage charges by the importer-respondent for late release of the vessel, the quantum of penalty/fine has been reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals).

4. It is observed from the impugned order that the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has taken into consideration the interest of both the appellant as well as the respondent, while reducing the quantum of penalty/fine amount. Hence, in my considered view, there is no infirmity in the impugned order, being reasoned/ speaking one. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.

(Dictated and pronounced in the open Court)

(S.K. MOHANTY)

MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Anita

??

??

??

??

0 2