Full Judgment
2. The facts of the case are that the appellants imported marble blocks. When the goods arrived at the port, the appellants prepared an in-bond Bills of Entry for warehousing the goods. The department did not allow warehousing the goods and since the appellants did not produce the import licence at the time while presenting the in-bond Bills of Entry, the goods were confiscated and allowed to be redeemed on payment of fine of Rs. 14 lakhs and penalty of Rs. 7 lakhs was also imposed on them. The case came up before the Tribunal and the Tribunal remanded back to the authorities below for considering the point taken by the importer. The Commissioner while passing the order in remand observed that the appellants may present in-bond Bills of Entry along with the goods which may be accepted by the customs authorities.
Against this requirement and against imposition of penalty and redemption of fine, the appellants have come up in appeal.
3. Arguing the case, Shri R. Swaminathan, ld. Consultant submits that there is a provision in the Exim policy in para 4.15 that the marble blocks on importation at the Indian port can be warehoused after executing the warehousing Bills of Entry. He submits that the importer had accordingly submitted in-bond Bills of Entry which was permitted under the above paragraph of the Exim policy but it was the mistake of the authority not to permit warehousing of the marble blocks by presentation of in-bond Bills of Entry. He submits that since these goods were likely to incur heavy demurrage, they had perforce to clear the goods on payment of duty, redemption fine and penalty. He submits that huge fine and penalty have been imposed which are out of all proportion and need to be set aside.
4. Shri S.K. Das, ld. JDR submits that import of marble blocks required a licence. He submits that when the goods were cleared, no licence was produced by the importer, therefore confiscation of the goods and imposition of penalty was justified. He submits that the Italian marble blocks fetch very high price and the margin of profit is also very high. He submits that 100% redemption fine, in the instant case, having regard to the fact that the marble blocks are Italian marble blocks, was not on the higher side. Looking to the value of the goods, penalty of Rs. 7 lakhs does not appear to be on the higher side. He, therefore, prays that the impugned order may be upheld and the appeal may be rejected.
5. Heard the rival submissions. We note that there is a provision in Exim policy for warehousing the imported marble blocks. We note that the applicants filed in-bond Bill of Entry which was not accepted by the customs authorities. We note that the applicants have not been able even today to produce the licence which was required for import of marble blocks. In the absence of licence, we hold that confiscation of the imported goods and imposition of penalty is justified. The only question that needs our evaluation is whether redemption fine and penalty are very much on the higher side. We find that the Exim policy permitted warehousing of the marble blocks. Thus, at the time of importation, production of import licence was not at all necessary, it was necessary only at the time of clearance from warehouse. In the instant case, the authority did not permit warehousing of the marble blocks imported from Italy. Looking to the fact that it was only Italian marble blocks, we are of the view that 100% redemption fine is not warranted. We are also of the view that looking to the value of the goods, the penalty of Rs. 7 lakhs is also on the higher side in view of the special circumstances of the case. In the circumstances, we reduce redemption fine to Rs. 7 lakhs and penalty to Rs. 3.50 lakhs. The impugned order is modified to the extent stated above and the appeal is disposed of accordingly.