Skip to content


Commissioner of Customs (import) Vs. Shri Mohammed Rahiman - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtCustoms Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Mumbai
Decided On
Judge
AppellantCommissioner of Customs (import)
RespondentShri Mohammed Rahiman
Excerpt:
.....& co. v. held that redemption commissioner (1999 (111) fine of 75% of the cif elt 619 (tri.) value held to be proper.2. the case of the department is that the car in question has been imported in utter defiance of law and by way of fraud. the fraud perpetuated by shri mohammed rehiman in importation of the car is a very well planned and pre-mediated action. as per well thought out plan, shri mohammed rehiman has fabricated the documents of registration at dubai to not just mis-represent, but to totally mis-lead the authorities at the time of clearance of the car.apparently shri mohammed rehiman was fully aware that the car cannot be otherwise imported by him in terms of the said public notice, which requires use of the same for over one year by the person seeking importation.3. the.....
Judgment:
1. The revenue has interalia submitted that the fine and penalty imposed by the Commissioner is not commensurate with the gravity of the mis-declaration and the duty involved. It is seen that the Commissioner imposed redemption fine of Rs. 2 lakhs and a penalty of Rs. 50,000/- on Shri Mohamed Rahiman, the importer and further penalty of Rs. 20,000/- on Shri Altaf Kadar Shaikh. Whereas value of the car imported has been mentioned as Rs. 11,21,257/- in para 15 of the impugned order. The department has relied on various decisions of the Tribunal as under:-------------------------------------------------------------------Sl. No. Party Remarks------------------------------------------------------------------(a) Commissioner v. Tamil Nadu Held that penalty and Petro Products Ltd. (1999 redemption fine fixed (106) ELT 462 (Tribunal) should be commensurate with(b) Silfer Enterprises v. Upheld imposition of Commissioner (1999 (112) penalty which is about ELT 1044 (Tribunal) 123% of the value of goods.(c) Shankar Trading Co. v. Held that redemption Commissioner (1999 (106) fine at 75% of the ELT 456 (Tri.) market value is an accepted proposition.(d) Shri Balaji & Co. v. Held that redemption Commissioner (1999 (111) fine of 75% of the CIF ELT 619 (Tri.) value held to be proper.

2. The case of the department is that the car in question has been imported in utter defiance of law and by way of fraud. The fraud perpetuated by Shri Mohammed Rehiman in importation of the car is a very well planned and pre-mediated action. As per well thought out plan, Shri Mohammed Rehiman has fabricated the documents of registration at Dubai to not just mis-represent, but to totally mis-lead the authorities at the time of clearance of the car.

Apparently Shri Mohammed Rehiman was fully aware that the car cannot be otherwise imported by him in terms of the said Public Notice, which requires use of the same for over one year by the person seeking importation.

3. The respondent is absent despite notice. Shri M.H. Sheikh, Ld. JDR appeared for the revenue and he submitted that the absence of the respondent despite notice shows that he is not serious to contest the appeal filed by the revenue. Looking into the facts of the case and case law relied on by the Revenue, I am fully satisfied that redemption fine and the penalty imposed is not commensurate to the value of the car.

4. I, therefore, enhance the fine and penalty to 75% of the value of the car. The appeal is allowed accordingly.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //