(1.) This appeal is directed against the Order -in -Appeal No - C. Cus. 592/2002, dated 31 -12 -2002 by which the Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the fine to Rs. 2,50,000/ - and the penalty to Rs. 50,000/ -.
(2.) Appearing on behalf of the appellants ld. Counsel Shri A.K. Jayaraj, submits that there has been a great discrimination against them and in the process they could clear the goods almost after 7 months and have paid detention charges to the tune of Rs. 2,48,829/ - and demurrage charges to the tune of Rs. 1,47,741/ -. He further submits that the same Commissioner (Appeals) in his Order -in -Appeal No. C. Cus. 147/2003, dated 30 -4 -2003 in the case of Bright Exports where the value was determined as Rs. 5,69,293/ -(CIF) and Bill of Entry was filed on 12 -11 -2002 in respect of used colour monitor and the redemption fine was reduced to Rs. 57,600/ - and penalty was reduced to Rs. 6,000/ - which comes to 10% of the value of the goods and penalty comes to 10% of redemption fine. He further pointed out in a similar case ld. Commissioner (Appeals) vide order No. 145/2003, dated 30 -4 -2003 in the matter of Globe Marketing where the value was Rs. 5,93,284/ - (CIF) and the Bill of Entry was filed on 30 -11 -2002 for identical goods viz. used colour monitor, the redemption fine was reduced by the Commissioner (Appeals) to Rs. 60,000/ - and penalty was reduced to Rs. 6,000/ -. In other words, in this case also ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the redemption fine to about 10% of the CIF Value and reduced the penalty to 10% of the redemption fine. However, in their case for an identical goods where the value was arrived at Rs. 7,38,014/ - (CIF). Ld. Commissioner has reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 2,50,000/ - and reduced the penalty to Rs. 50,000/ - in spite of the fact that they have paid the demurrage charges and detention charges to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs inasmuch as they could clear their goods after a period of 7 months. Because of this heavy redemption fine and penalty which was imposed by the original authority and marginally reduced by the ld. Commissioner (Appeals) they were not able to clear their goods leading to heaving demurrage and detention charges. The discriminatory order passed by ld. Commissioner (Appeals) where he had, in their case, imposed redemption fine to about 30% of the value and penalty to Rs. 50,000/ - which comes to about 40% of the redemption fine. In view of the above situation and the discrimination, the demurrage charges to the tune of Rs. 3 lakhs had to be paid by them, completely wiping out their margin of profit. Ld. Counsel submits that the redemption fine should be at least reduced to 10% of the value of the goods and the penalty to 10% of the redemption fine as was the treatment given to the similarly placed persons. However, the learned Counsel wanted further reduction since they do not have any profit margin left in this consignment. Shri A.K. Jayaraj, Counsel submitted that the Commissioner (Appeals) vide order in Appeal No. C. Cus. 615/2001, dated 28 -9 -2001 in the case of Verismo Impex, Chennai had reduced the redemption fine to Rs. 1 lakh for a value of Rs. 8,85,828/ -. However, ld. Commissioner (Appeals) did not reduce the penalty which was reasonably imposed to the extent of 20,000/ - by the Assistant Commissioner.
(3.) Ld. SDR Smt. Bhaghya Devi submits that the appellant's case was decided in the month of December, 2002 whereas the orders, as stated by him of comparable goods in respect of other parties i.e. decision was taken by the Commissioner (Appeals) on 30 -4 -2003 and by that time, the value of the goods must have come down and it may be in these circumstances ld. Commissioner (Appeals) has reduced the fine and penalty to 10% on CIF value and penalty reduced to 10% on the redemption fine. She further submits that there is no discrimination as their case was decided first whereas the cases which are dated 30 -4 -2003 the Commissioner (Appeals) has imposed consistent fine and penalty in both these cases decided on 30 -4 -2003.