Commissioner Of Customs (General), Cfs ... vs M/S Z.N. Garments & Others

[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No. 221(CFS, MULUND (I))/2006 dated 22.11.2006 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals), Mumbai-II].

For approval and signature:

Honble Shri M.V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)

======================================================

1. Whether Press Reporters may be allowed to see : No 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 : No CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982 for publication in any authoritative report or not?

3. Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy : Seen of the order?

4. Whether order is to be circulated to the Departmental : Yes authorities? ======================================================

Commissioner of Customs (General), CFS Mulund, Mumbai Appellant

Vs.

M/s Z.N. Garments & Others Respondent

Appearance: Mr. M.K. Sarangi, A.C. (AR) for Appellants

None for Respondents

CORAM: HONBLE SHRI M.V. RAVINDRAN, MEMBER (JUDICIAL)

Date of Hearing: 15.06.2015

Date of Decision: 15.06.2015

ORDER NO.

Per: Shri M. V. Ravindran, Member (Judicial)

1. All these appeals are disposed of by a common order as they arise out of the same impugned order.

2. Heard the learned departmental representative and perused records.

3. These appeals were listed for disposal by the registry on noticing that the amount involved in all these appeals are less than Rs. Five Lacs.

4. On perusal of records, it is noticed that the issue involved in these cases is regarding redemption fine and penalty imposed by the first appellate authority. The first appellate authority has upheld the order that imposed redemption fine of 25% and penalty as 5% of the value respectively. It is the case of the department that first appellate authority has not considered the gravity of the offence as respondents are aware of law and provisions, hence higher level of penalty and fine is justified.

5. I find that the revenue has no case, in as much that there are concurrent findings of both the lower authorities as to imposition of redemption fine and penalty. The adjudicating authority has re-determined the value following the provisions of the Customs Act, 1962 read with Rule-6 of Customs Valuation (Determination of price of Imported goods) Rules, 1988. For upholding the impugned order challenged before him, the first appellate authority has recorded the following findings:

I have gone through the facts of the case carefully and the case law cited by the appellant. I find that Tribunal in the case of Garment India Corporation V/s CC, Import, Nhava Sheva No. A/35/WZB/06-C.1 (CSTB) dated 05.01.06 while dealing with quantum of fine and penalty to be imposed in case of import of old and used garments, has taken the fine and penalty amount at 25% and 5% of the Value respectively. In the said case, Tribunal has taken notice of its earlier decision in the case of Asian Wollen Mills, Order No. A/28/WZB/2005/C.1 dated 04.08.05 and Krishna Export Corporation, Order No. 2/1134-77/03/WZB dated 22.05.03, wherein amount of fine and penalty was taken at 25% and 5% of the CIF value. The issues decided in the aforesaid decisions are similar to the present appeals regarding quantum of fine and penalty to be imposed in case of import of old and used garments, and applicable to the present appeals. Therefore I do not find any reason to interfere with the orders passed by the lower adjudicating authority and same are upheld on amount of Fine and Penalty. Appeals filed by the department are rejected as to avoid any disparity among the similarly placed cases.

It can be seen from the above reproduced findings that the first appellate authority has followed the law as is decided by the Tribunal.

6. In view of the forgoing, in the facts and circumstances of these cases, I hold that the impugned order is correct and does not require any interference.

7. Appeals are rejected.

(Dictated in Court)

(M.V. Ravindran) Saifi Member (Judicial)

1