Commissioner Of Customs, Tuticorin vs M/S. Mithu & Co
- CitationAppeal No.77/2010, dated 21.12.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Exci
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The redemption fine and penalty imposed on the importer are not to be enhanced by the Revenue where the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced them, absent any demonstration of the value of the entire misdeclared goods and the quantum of profit accruing to the assessee from the impugned imports; the Tribunal will not intervene in the redemption fine so reduced, and the Revenue's appeal against the penalty reduction stands dismissed on the same basis.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
[Arising out of Order-in-Appeal No.77/2010, dated 21.12.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs & Central Excise (Appeals), Tiruchirapalli]
COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, TUTICORIN APPELLANT
Versus
M/s. MITHU & CO. RESPONDENT
Appearance:
For the Appellant Shri B. Balamurugan, AC (AR)
For the Respondent Shri Derrick Sam, [No vakalat on file]
Adv.
CORAM:
Honble Shri D.N. Panda, Judicial Member
Date of hearing/decision 17-04-2015
FINAL ORDER NO.40417 / 2015
The dates imported were found to be misdeclared both as to quantity and value. Learned Adjudicating authority reassessed the value at USD 368 PMT, while the importer declared the same as USD 280 PMT. Assessee has no pleading to show that because of the peculiar nature of the goods, the value of the goods declared ws proper. Therefore, Revenue determined the value applying the Customs (Valuation) Rules, 2007. That remained untouched in appeal. But the redemption fine of Rs.3,00,000/- and penalty of Rs.2,00,000/- imposed in adjudication was reduced by learned Commissioner (Appeals) to Rs.1,50,000/- and Rs.1,00,000/- respectively. Neither of the authority have brought out what was the value of the entire misdeclared goods to appreciate the quantum of profit due to the assessee in respect of the impugned imports. Therefore, without dilating the matter and also considering that the amount of redemption fine imposed by Commissioner (Appeals) does not require intervention and similarly against the decision of the learned Commissioner (Appeals) on penalty, Revenue appeal is dismissed. (Dictated and pronounced in open court)
(D.N. PANDA) JUDICIAL MEMBER
ksr 17-04-2015
DRAFT Remarks
I II III
Date of dictation 17.04.2015
Draft Order - Date of typing
Fair Order Typing .04.2015
Date of number and date of dispatch
2 C/00079/2011
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free