Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2004 DIGILAW 305 (PNJ)

H. B. Fibres Ltd. v. Cegat

2004-03-16

N.K.SUD, S.S.GREWAL

body2004
Judgment N.K.Sud, J. 1. The assessee has filed this reference under Section 130A of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short the Act) seeking a direction to the Customs Excise & Gold (Control) Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for short the Tribunal) to prepare a statement of the case and refer the following questions of law arising out of its order dated 30-4-2002 for the opinion of this Court. ( whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, penalty could be levied on the petitioner in as much as the petetioner was acting bona fide ? (ii Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was justified in fixing Redemption Fine of Rs. 10 lakhs, when there was loss and the market price of the imported goods realised by the Appellant was lower than the duty chargeable thereon? (ii Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, fine be imposed on the appellant under Section 125 in as much as the Commissioner in his order observed that goods belonged to Sh. Ravi Jagota of Youngman and it was he who had placed order for the goods? (iv Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the petitioner be liable for wrong doings of Sh. Ravi Jagota because it was he who had misdeclared and under-valued the goods and not the petitioner? (v) Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, fine imposed on the petitioner be sustained since the petitioner has filed Bill of Entry as per documents given to him by the supplier, petitioner was not aware about the actual nature of goods and Sh. Ravi Jagota had misused the name of the petitioner-company to further his interests ? (vi Whether in the facts and the circumstances of the case, the construction of section 125 of the Customs Act, 1962 was proper, legal and justified? 2. The assessee had imported Acrylic Fibre which had been described in the documents as Wool Waste. The authorities, therefore, levied excise duty on this transaction and also imposed penalty. Commissioner also levied redemption fine and interest on account of delayed payment. Assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against these levies. However, at the time of hearing of appeal, it confined its challenge to the levy of redemption fine and interest only. Tribunal allowed the appeal qua levy of interest. Commissioner also levied redemption fine and interest on account of delayed payment. Assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal against these levies. However, at the time of hearing of appeal, it confined its challenge to the levy of redemption fine and interest only. Tribunal allowed the appeal qua levy of interest. However, it did not accept the plea of the assessee that it had acted in a bona fide manner and therefore, was not liable for redemption fine. While rejecting this contention, the Tribunal observed as under : The confiscability of the goods under Section 111(m) of the Customs Act was conceded by the party when they conceded misdeclaration of description and value of the goods. A penalty under Section 112 of the Act has a direct nexus to the confiscability of the goods under Section 111. The appellants have not pressed their challenge vis-a-vis the penalty. The goods were admittedly not available for confiscation. In these circumstances, a redemption fine was warranted. The case law cited by the counsel would not help his client in the said circumstances. The Counsels argument that such a fine was not liable to be imposed as the appellants were acting bona fide has no force as the plea of bona fides coming from the mouth of a party who has conceded liability to be penalised cannot be accepted. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that the quantum of the fine imposed by the Commissioner is on the higher side. We reduce it to Rs. ten lakhs. 3. A perusal of the above clearly shows that Tribunal on an appraisal of material on record has arrived at a finding of fact that the assessee had misdeclared the description as well as the value of goods and therefore, could not be said to have acted in a bona fid manner. This is a pure finding of fact and does not give rise to any substantial question of law for consideration of this court. 4. As far as the issues raised in the other questions are concerned, counsel has not been able to show that these arise out of the order of the Tribunal. 5. Accordingly the petition is dismissed in limine.