SREE AMBAL EXPO LTD. Vs. CC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellants imported 675 MTs of fresh garlic of Chinese origin declaring unit price of US 445, PMT (CIF), and filed a Bill of Entry No. 356312 dated 15.10.2001 for clearance thereof under ITC (HSN) Heading 0703.20 wherein the goods were restricted for import and permitted only against valid specific licence. The importer did not possess any such licence, though, on examination, the description and classification of the goods as given in the Bill of Entry were found to be correct. It also appeared to the Customs authorities that the goods were undervalued. Accordingly, it was proposed to enhance the value of the goods to US 450 PMT (CIF). Further, on account of having been imported without the requisite licence, the goods were found to be liable to confiscation under Section 11 l(d) and (m) of the Customs Act read with Section of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992. Furthermore, the importer was found liable to be penalised under Section 112(a) of the Act. The party waived show -cause notice and personal hearing and, accordingly, the Commissioner of Customs passed an order confiscating the goods under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act with option for redemption thereof on payment of fine of Rs. 20.00 lakhs, imposing a penalty of Rs. 10.00 lakhs on the importer under Section 112(a) of the Act and enhancing the value of the goods to US 450 PMT (CIF). The present appeal is against the decision of the Commissioner.

(2.) Heard both sides; It is submitted by Id. Counsel for the appellants that, in an earlier identical case, this Tribunal passed Final Order No. 282/2003 dated 22.4.2003 in appeal No. C/269/2002 reducing the quanta of redemption fine and penalty in favour of the same party. It is pointed out that the said order relates to an identical import of fresh garlic of Chinese origin. Ld. Counsel enumerates the similarities of the two cases. We have heard ld. SDR also, who concedes the similarities. We have also compared the facts of the instant case with those of Appeal No. C/269/2002 and have, found that the facts are identical.

(3.) In the earlier case of the same party, we had reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 20.00 lakhs to Rs. 8.50 lakhs and penalty from Rs. 10.00 lakhs to Rs. 2.50 lakhs. We pass the same order in the instant case. Accordingly, the redemption fine and penalty imposed by the Commissioner will stand reduced to Rs. 8.50 lakhs and Rs. 2.50 lakhs respectively. The impugned order stands modified to this extent only.