ORDER
P.S. Bajaj, Member (J)
1. This appeal has been filed by M/s. Divine United Organisation against the impugned order in appeal dated 26-11-1999 passed by the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals); vide which he had reduced the redemption fine from Rs. 60,000/- to Rs. 30,000/- and set aside the personal penalty of Rs. 5,000/- as imposed on them by the Additional Commissioner of Customs through the order-in-original dated 16-10-1999, but maintained the duty amount as assessed by the Additional Commissioner of Customs.
2. The appellants M/s. Divine United Organisation (in short, DUO) are a non-Commercial organisation being run on donations. The organisation performs non-comercial activity and had been exempted from Income Tax under Section 80G of the Income Tax Act. The goods in question i.e. 5 used Video Cameras with accessories, were not imported by the organisation but were sent by a member from a foreign country as a donation. The appellants could not refuse the donation in order to avoid any hurt the feelings and sentiment of the donor but by accepting the donation they had to earn the wrath of Customs department. The Additional Commissioner of Customs ordered the confiscation of the goods and imposed redemption fine of Rs. 60,000/- besides penalty of Rs. 5,000/- on the appellants. He also assessed the value of the goods at Rs. 3,13,334/-.
3. The appellants being aggrieved with this order-in-original of the Additional Collector of Customs, challenged the same before the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) who modified the same by reducing the redemption fine to Rs. 30,0007- and also set aside the penalty.
4. The appellants have come up in appeal before the Tribunal.
5. I have heard both the sides.
6. Shri Gokul Prasad, Representative of the appellants organisation has contended that the appellants had been punished for no fault of their as the goods in question were never imported by them, but were sent to them as a donation by a donor from a foreign country, which they could not refuse. The value of the goods had been wrongly assessed and the redemption fine had been wrongly assessed and the redemption fine had been also illegally imposed on them. They had no occasion to apply for the import licence. Moreover, the organisation did not known even, if any licence was required for having not indulged in any such commercial transactions earlier. Therefore, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) deserves to be set aside.
7. On the other hand, the learned JDR has simply supported the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) and left the matter to the Bench.
8. I have gone through the record. So far as the assessment of the value of the imported goods as made by the Additional Commissioner of Customs (adjudicating authority) is concerned, no fault can be found as he had assessed the same on the basis of value as recorded in the Bill of Entry, filed by the appellants. Shri Gokul Prasad, Representative has no doubt produced before me copy of the letter issued by the donor where contains lesser value of the items donated by him, than the one mentioned in the Bill of Entry, but the same cannot be accepted to be correct at this stage and Shri Mukul Prasad himself has also conceded this fact.
9. However, keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the redemption fine of Rs. 30,000/- imposed on the appellants is still on a higher side being exhorbitant. The Additional Commissioner who adjudicated the matter imposed redemption fine of Rs. 60,000/-. No doubt, the Commissioner of Customs (Appeals) reduced the fine to be reasonable and proper especially when he himself in the impugned order had observed that the appellants are non-commercial organization being run on donations. The goods in question were never imported by them but were sent by a member as donation which could not be refused as the refusal must have hurt the feelings of the donor. He has further observed in the concluding para of the impugned order that “on consideration of facts elucidated, he was convinced that there was nothing on the record to show that the appellants acted with mala fide intention in any manner or to prove that they are guilty of any act or omission, in the violation of law which rendered the goods liable to confiscation”. In view of these observations he should have made substantial reduction in the redemption fine instead of only 50%. Since the goods were not imported by the appellants themselves but were sent to them by a donor and they being a noncommercial organisation the object of which is to promote educational, social interest and spiritual knowledge, did not know if any import licence was needed and there being no mala fide intention on their part, the redemption fine is, therefore, reduced to Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only).
10. In view of the discussion made above, the impugned order of the Commissioner (Appeals) is accordingly modified to the extent that the redemption fine from Rs. 30,000/- (Rupees thirty thousand only) is reduced to Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees five thousand only). The excess amount, if already paid by the appellants, will be refunded to them in accordance with law. The appeal of the appellants accordingly stands disposed off.