9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Confiscation of imported second-hand machinery under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962, penalty imposition under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act, and duty payment at the appropriate rate. Confiscation and Penalty Imposition: The case involved the confiscation of imported second-hand machinery and imposition of penalties under Sections 111(d) and 112(a) of the Customs Act, 1962. The Commissioner of Customs had ordered for the confiscation of the machinery under Section 111(d) and granted an option for redemption upon payment of a fine of Rs. 13 lakhs. Additionally, a penalty of Rs. 1.3 lakhs was imposed under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The basis for this action was the violation of import policies related to the age of the machinery, as per Para 5.3 and 5.4 of the Export and Import Policy and Handbook of Procedures. The machinery, being more than 10 years old, required a specific license for import, which was not obtained, rendering it liable for confiscation under the Customs Act and penalty imposition. Chartered Engineer's Certificate and Compliance: The appellants had produced a Chartered Engineer's Certificate certifying the condition and value of the imported machinery. The certificate indicated the year of manufacture and value of the machine, which was further verified by a local Chartered Engineer during examination. Despite this, the machinery was found to be more than 10 years old, contravening the import policies. The appellants did not contest the Chartered Engineer's report or provide evidence to refute the age of the machinery, leading to the Commissioner's order for confiscation and penalty imposition being upheld. Legal Proceedings and Decision: During the proceedings, the appellants did not contest the violation of import policies or provide substantial evidence to challenge the confiscation and penalties imposed. The Commissioner's order was found to be in accordance with the Export and Import Policy, justifying the confiscation and penalty. The appellants' failure to contest the report or provide evidence against the age of the machinery resulted in the rejection of their appeal. The fine and penalty imposed were deemed reasonable based on the declared value of the goods, and the lack of substantial contestation further supported the decision to uphold the Commissioner's order. In conclusion, the appeal was rejected as the appellants failed to provide evidence to challenge the confiscation and penalties imposed for importing second-hand machinery that violated import policies regarding age restrictions. The Commissioner's order was upheld as being in compliance with relevant legal provisions, and the fine and penalty were considered reasonable based on the circumstances of the case.
|
