COMMISSIONER OF CUSTOMS Vs. MARMO CLASSIC

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN all these Customs Applications filed under Section 130a of the Customs Act, 1962, the Commissioner of Customs seeks an order directing the CEGAT, Mumbai to raise and refer certain questions of law for opinion of this Court which according to him arise out of the order of the Tribunal. Since the issues raised in all these Customs Applications are similar, they are disposed of by this common Judgment.

(2.) FOR the sake of convenience, we have taken the facts in Customs Application No. 27 of 2002. In this case, the respondent had imported various consignments of raw/rough marble blocks and sought clearance under the Customs Tariff Heading 2515. 12. The Commissioner of Customs found that the goods imported were in violation of the import policy and by the Order-in-Original dated 31-8-2001 and 13-9-2001, the Commissioner confiscated the goods imported by the Respondent under Section 111 (d) of the Customs Act, 1962. However, the Commissioner of Customs gave an option to the Respondents to redeem the goods on payment of fine and penalty as more particularly set out in the order passed by the Commissioner of Customs, Mumbai.

(3.) BEING aggrieved by the aforesaid orders, the Respondents filed appeals before the CEGAT, Mumbai and by a common order dated 16-4-2002, the CEGAT, Mumbai reduced the fine approximately to 20% of CIF value determined and reduced the penalty to 5% of the CIF value determined by relying upon its decision in the case of Stonemann Marble Industries v. Commissioner of Customs. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the Commissioner of Customs has filed the present applications under Section 130a of the Customs Act, 1962 stating therein that the following questions of law arise out of the order of the Tribunal, namely :