COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. SHILPA TRADING COMPANY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Revenue is before this Court against the order passed by the Tribunal [2008 (224) E.L.T. 453 (Tri. -Bang.)] holding that no redemption fine is imposable when the bond and the bank guarantee executed by the assessee has already been cancelled. The assessee -Importer admitted that there was an undervaluation to the extent of 60% to 62% and that he has used invoices of his brother firm to under -invoice the goods. He admitted that the price list which was relied on by the Revenue was the actual value of the goods. In view of the aforesaid admissions, the assessing authority upheld the charge of the Department pertaining to the undervaluation. The assessee has admitted the liability and also deposited an amount of Rs. 10.00 lakhs towards duty and interest. Thereafter, the order came to be passed levying duty, interest and penalty. Aggrieved by the said order, both the Revenue and the assessee preferred an appeal. The appeal preferred by the assessee was dismissed and the appeal preferred by the Revenue was allowed on the ground that the authority should have passed an order imposing redemption fine when the goods were confiscated and accordingly, the matter was remanded by the authorities.

(2.) AFTER issuing notice to the assessee and after considering his objections and taking note of the various judgments on which reliance is placed, the authority held, as admittedly there was a violation of the provisions of the Act, the goods imported are liable to be confiscated as the goods were released on the assessee executing a bond as well as executing a bank guarantee. Therefore, imposed the redemption fine in lieu of confiscation. Aggrieved by the said order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. The Tribunal was of the view that the bond and the bank guarantee executed in favour of the Revenue expired and the goods were not in the possession of the Authorities. In those circumstances, the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Weston Components Ltd. v. Commissioner of Customs, New Delhi reported in : 2000 (115) E.L.T. 278 (S.C.) is not applicable and therefore, set aside the imposition of redemption fine. Aggrieved by the said order, the Revenue is in appeal.