After hearing the learned counsel for the parties we are inclined to agree that the appellant did not have a fair deal both in order in original as well as the appellate order by the Tribunal. After rejecting the declared value of the consignment (diesel engines) imported by the appellant from China, no basis legally acceptable were evolved to determine their value. Also the imposition of 100% redemption fine of the ascertained value of goods instead of the amount of duties sought to be evaded was not legally justified. Learned counsel for the appellant is correct in pointing out that in the given situation the value indicated by the banker's documents through which the letters of credits were established provided a reasonable guide. On course even in their presence the Revenue could still bring home that the value declared in these documents was also not correct.
However, such an exercise requires bringing adequate material on record.
2. Learned Tribunal on the other hand was swayed by their impression that the appellant had been guilty of fraud. Even if that was correct the appellant still needed to be dealt with in accordance with law. A punishment disproportionate to the guilt is as much illegal as the act calling for the imposition.
3. Accordingly both the order in original as well as the first appellate order recorded by the Tribunal in case of the appellant on 18-11-1999 are set aside. The matter shall be remitted to the Adjudicating Officer to make a fresh adjudication within thirty days from the date when order is conveyed to him. All submissions made by the appellant, both factual as well as legal, shall be considered and adequately ruled upon.
4. Disposed of in the above terms.