ORDER
V.K. Ashtana, Member (T)
1. This is an appeal against Order-in-Original No. 13/96, dated 28-10-1996 regarding import of Cassia of Chinese origin by the appellants from the Port of Tuticorin wherein in view of the importers not having been in a position to produce valid licence for import, the goods were confiscated and offered for redemption fine of Rs. 16,44,180/-. Also a penalty of Rs. 1,37,000/- was imposed.
2. Heard Shri A.K. Jeyaraj, ld. Advocate for appellants and Ms. Aruna Gupta, ld. DR.
3. Ld. Advocate submits that he is not disputing the unavailability of valid licence for import and therefore the liability of goods for confiscation. He is only submitting that the quantum of fine in lieu of confiscation is very high being almost 120% of the CIF value. In this connection, he cites the following final orders issued by this Tribunal from time to time on the import of Cassia in the nearby Port of Cochin as well as from the Port of Tuticorin also :-
——————————————————————————–
Sl. No. Final Order No. Appellant's name Bill of entry date
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. 137/96, Shagaroobjee 27-5-1996
dated 2-9-1996 Pukharej
2. 2218/96, Chiku 10-6-1996
4-12-1996 International
3. 2478/96, General Traders 30-9-1996
dated 8-12-1996
4. 1320/98, Shankar Trading 20-2-1997
10-7-1998
1999 (106) E.L.T. 456 (T)
5. 410-412/99, M.J. Enterprises 11-2-1997
22-3- 1999
6. 758-762/99, Balaji & Co. & Others (1)24-9-1996,
dated 15-4-1999 (2)24-1-1997,
1999 (111) E.L.T. 619 (3)4-2-1997 &
(Tri.)] (4)7-8-1996.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. La. Advocate further submits that the Tribunal on similar issue also dismissed the Revenue’s appeal in the case of C.C.E. v. Diamond Traders vide Final Order No. 765/99, dated 15-4-1999.
5. Ld. Advocate further submits that in the instant case, the Bill of Entry is dated 19-9-1996 and is therefore round about the same period as was the case in General Traders and Balaji & Company noted above. It was also in close proximity to certain other imports cited above. Since the market conditions would remain about the same in these area, therefore the same logic as contained in these final orders would be applicable in this case also. In these orders; noted above, the Tribunal had been pleased to reduce Redemption Fine to 75% of the CIF Value. He prays that the ratio of the same may be adopted in this case.
6. Heard ld. DR who reiterates the Order-in-Original.
7. We have carefully considered the rival submissions as well as the records of the case. In the Final Order No. 1320/98, dated 10-7-1998 in the case of Shankar Trading Company, this very Tribunal had considered in detail the manner in which the redemption fine should be calculated and have come to the conclusion that for similar imports, the redemption fine would be approximately 75% of the CIF Value. Similar level of redemption fine has been followed by the Hon’ble Tribunal in the case of Final Order No. 2478/96 in the case of General Traders (supra) wherein the date of import was 30-9-1996 and also in the case of Balaji and Company (supra) it was 24-9-1996. Since the present import date is almost at the period which is very proximate to that of these two final orders, therefore, assuming there would be no significant change in the market price, the ratio thereof would clearly be applicable to this case also.
8. Therefore, respectfully applying the ratio thereof, we order that the Order-in-original impugned is modified to the extent of reducing the Redemption Fine to 75% of the CIF Value. The appeal is partly allowed in the above terms with consequential relief, as per law.
