Judgment:
Ashok Jindal, Member (Judicial)
The appellant has filed this appeal against the quantum of redemption fine and penalty imposed on them under the Customs Act, 1962.
2. This matter has come second time before us. While dealing with the stay application of the appellant, this Tribunal has passed the final order on 27.6.2002 by reducing the redemption fine to 20% of the CIF value and penalty to 5% of such value. The matter travelled upto the Hon'ble Apex Court and the Hon'ble Apex court remanded the matter back to this Tribunal to pass a speaking order on the quantum of redemption fine and penalty by holding that the order passed by this Tribunal is arbitrary and whimsical. Therefore, we are hearing this matter afresh again.
3. The facts of the case are that the appellant imported Iranian marble block and filed bills of entry in the year 1999. The quantity of the impugned goods was shown as 211.86MT and CIF value as Rs.8,90,454/- (@ US$ 95/MT). The goods were examined and found excess by 46.23MT against the declared weight of 211.86MT. Goods were provisionally cleared and thereafter final assessment was made. While making the final assessment, the adjudicating authority imposed a redemption fine of Rs.28.9 lakhs and penalty of Rs.5.62 lakhs. Aggrieved from the quantum of redemption fine and penalty are before us.
4. Shri S.N. Kantawala, ld. advocate for the appellant appeared and submitted that in para 13 of the impugned order the adjudicating authority has discussed that they have made some market survey. On the basis of the said survey, the value of the impugned goods comes to Rs.145/sq.ft. On the basis of the said value, the redemption fine and penalty were quantified and imposed but the said report was not supplied to the appellant to put their defence. Therefore, matter be remanded back to the adjudicating with a direction to supply the market survey report and thereafter put defence by the appellant and pass an appropriate order.
5. On the other hand, Shri Y.K. Agarwal strongly opposed the contention of the advocate and submitted that impugned order is a speaking order and the adjudicating authority has passed the order on the basis of the market survey conducted by them. In the decision, the appellant could not lead any evidence in support of their sale value of the impugned goods. Therefore, the impugned order is to be accepted.
6. Heard both sides.
7. After hearing both sides, we find that the appellant should be given an opportunity to go through the market survey report and put their defence. We further find that the basis arrived at the redemption fine and penalty may be the sale invoice of the impugned goods which the appellant did not produce at the time of adjudication. Therefore, the appellant is at liberty to plead the contention of sale invoice before the adjudicating authority and adjudicating authority shall supply the market survey report conducted by them and thereafter appellant shall put their defence. On the basis of the defence, the adjudicating authority shall determine the quantum of redemption fine and penalty in accordance with law.
8. Impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed by way of remand as directed above.