COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS, CALCUTTA Vs. ESSAR GUJARAT LTD.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is Revenue's appeal against the order of Commissioner of Customs. Nobody is present for the respondents. We have heard Shri R.K. Roy, ld. JDR and have gone through the memo of appeal.

(2.) VIDE the impugned order, Commissioner has confiscated the imported copper scrap with an option to the respondents to redeem the same on payment of Rs. 25 lakhs. A penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs has also been imposed. It is seen from the order that the price declared by the respondents for the said scrap was US $ 1350 per M.T. CIF. The said price on investigation was found to be on the lower side and the Department decided; to enhance price from U.S.$ 1350 to US $ 1680 per M.T. which was agreed to by the respondents and the goods were cleared by them at the enhanced value.

(3.) THE Revenue in their ground of appeal have submitted that the Commissioner's order is not a speaking order inasmuch as it has not specified the basis for determining the assessable value only as US $ 1680 per M.T. However, the Revenue in their ground have not contended as to what should be the value of the imported copper scrap. It is also seen that this enhancement from US $ 1350 per M.T. to US $ 1680 per M.T. was only at the instance of the Revenue. There was no further proposal to enhance the value. In these circumstances, we do not find any merits in the Revenue's contention that the impugned order of the Commissioner enhancing the price is not a justifiable order and the price should have been further enhanced. The Revenue has also challenged the quantum of redemption fine and penalty imposed upon the respondents. It is not aggitated that no calculation showing the margin of profit etc. have been taken into account. It is well settled that margin of profit is only a guiding factor in fixing redemption fine and cannot be made the basis for exact arithmetical calculation for fixing the redemption fine. As such, we also note that the Revenue has not placed any evidence on record to show the higher margin of profit justifying enhancement in the quantum of redemption fine. Accordingly, no merits are found in these contentions of the Revenue also. Similarly, the quantum of penalty is also dependent upon the facts and circumstances each and every case and no hard and fast rule can be applied for deciding the quantum of penalty. The Revenue has not given any justifiable ground for enhancement of the penalty.