9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
Import of Machinery under E.P.C.G. Scheme in an old Marine Steel Container, Confiscation of the container, Redemption fine, Penalty, Applicability of Para 29 of Export Import Policy 1992-97, Duty determination, Valuation of the container, Reduction of redemption fine and penalty. Analysis: The appellants imported Machinery under the E.P.C.G. Scheme, despatched in an old Marine Steel Container without an additional price. The container was confiscated with a redemption fine of Rs. 35,000 and a penalty of Rs. 10,000, reduced to Rs. 15,000 and Rs. 3,000 respectively by the Commissioner (Appeals). The liability for confiscation was upheld under Para 29 of the Export Import Policy 1992-97, stating that second-hand goods required an import license. Duty was determined at Rs. 75,000, leading to the appeal. After considering the arguments, it was found that the Marine Steel Container was used for safe transportation of machinery, not as primary packing, and required an import license. The liability for confiscation under Section 111(d) of the Customs Act, 1962 was upheld. The container was deemed leviable to duty separately, following the decision in Ballarpur Industries Ltd. v. CC - 1992 (60) E.L.T. 472 (Tri.). The value of the container was assessed separately from the machinery, as per CC, Mumbai v. Ispat Profiles (India) Ltd. - 2001 (138) E.L.T. 884 (Tri.), which was not applicable in this case due to the nature of the E.P.C.G. machinery imports. The valuation of the container was based on the value of a new container with depreciation, uncontested by the appellants. The reduction of the redemption fine and penalty was adequately addressed by the Commissioner (Appeals), with no grounds for interference. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed based on the findings of the Tribunal.
|
