- (1.) The Court : Leave is granted to correct the date of the order. We have heard the learned Advocates for the parties. We have also perused the order passed by the learned Tribunal. This application has been filed for admission of the appeal from an order dated 28-1-2008 passed by the Customs, Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal, Eastern Regional Bench, Kolkata. It appears that the appellant imported the impugned goods from Surinam and no specified inspection agency was located at the said area. It appears that a reference was made to the Embassy of India in Surinam and the Embassy has clarified that there is no inspection agency in Surinam to inspect the scrap materials being exported from there and further that the exports are made after inspection by Customs and certification by the local Chamber of Commerce and Industry. It is submitted that in absence of any objectionable materials in the consignment , the same should not have been confiscated and no penal action should have been taken . On the contrary, it is submitted that the import policy provides for pre-shipment certificate to ensure that arms, bombs and other explosive materia ls are not imported into the country along with the scrap materials. It is submitted that the waiver of confiscation of goods and penalty in such cases would encourage the importers to bring all kinds of scrap and that would be a real threat to the country.
(2.) It appears to us that the learned Tribunal after hearing the parties came to the conclusion as follows : "We are of the view that the policy provision is very clear and the appellants have violated the same in respect of several importations. As such, the impugned goods are clearly liable for confiscation and the appellants are liable for penal action. However, considering various pleas advanced by the appellants, such as, non-availability of inspection agency locally in Surinam and the subsequent checks indicating non-detection of any of the explosive materials, we take a lenient view and reduce the redemption fine in each case to the level of 10% of the assessed value. We also reduce the penalty in each case to 5% of the assessed value with a caution that the future contraventions would be more seriously viewed. Since the appellants claim that they have already paid the determined fines and penalties, they would be entitled to consequential refunds after adjusting the reduced fines and penalties determined by us and subject, of course, to the provision of unjust enrichment."
(3.) In view of that, we are of the considered opinion that the learned Tribunal has decided the question in accordance with the provisions of law and we do not find that there is any illegality or irregularity in the order in question. We have also found out that no grounds have been made out to admit this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.;