M/S Siddhant Apparels vs Cc, Icd, Tuglakabad, New Delhi

1 Whether Press Reporter may be allowed to see the Order for publication as per Rule 26 of the CESTAT (Procedure) Rules, 1982?

2 Whether it should be released under Rule 26 of 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?

Customs Appeal No. 647 of 2010

(Arising out of order-in-appeal No. CC(A)/Cus/Inland Container Depot/33/10 dated 22.06.2010 passed by the Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi).

M/s Siddhant Apparels Appellant

Vs.

CC, ICD, Tuglakabad, New Delhi Respondent

Appearance:

Ms. Reena Rawat, Advocate for the appellant

Shri Ranjan Khanna, DA for the Revenue

Coram:

Honble Mr. Justice G. Raghuram, President

Honble Mr. R. K. Singh, Member (Technical)

Final Order No. 53130 / 2015

Per: R. K. Singh:

Appeal has been filed against order-in-appeal dated 22.06.2010 in terms of which redemption fine of Rs. 2 lakhs and penalty of Rs.2,10,000/- was upheld.

2. The facts of the case, in brief, are as under:

The appellant imported old and used computer & CRT monitors. Import of such old and used goods required import licence which the appellant did not possess. The adjudicating authority also found on the basis of examination by Chartered Engineer that the value declared by the appellant was on a lower side and enhanced the value to Rs.20,75,524/- (CIF) from declared value of Rs. 15,55,261/- (CIF) which was accepted by appellant.

3. Ld. Advocate for the appellant does not contest the value and is only contesting the quantum of redemption fine and penalty on the ground that the differential duty as a result of enhancement of value was only to the tune of Rs.63,000/- and therefore redemption fine and penalty should be much lower.

4. We have considered the contentions of the appellant. We find that the appellant is not contesting the upward revision of value leading to differential duty of the order of Rs. 63,695/-. We further find that even if the value declared by the importer was accepted the goods would still be liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 inasmuch as the impugned goods were not freely importable and required import license. The appellant did not have any such import licence at all as was accepted by ld. advocate. Thus the goods were clearly imported in violation of the Export and Import Policy rendering them liable to confiscation under Section 111(d) of Customs Act, 1962. In the present case, we find that the value of the goods was to the tune of Rs. 20 lakhs and thus redemption fine works out to about 10% of the assessable value and penalty works out about 10.5% of the assessable value. Having regard to the nature of the goods and the fact that they were not only undervalued but also imported in violation of Import and Export Policy, this level of fine and penalty cannot in any way be called unreasonable or arbitrary. Thus, we do not find any merit in the appeal and the same is dismissed.

(Justice G. Raghuram)

President

(R. K. Singh)

Member (Technical)

Pant