9911796707
|
Home
Issues:
1. Confiscation and penalty imposed on imported machines disposed of without permission. 2. Confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty imposed on machines not put to actual use. 3. Penalty imposed on the Director of the importing company. Analysis: 1. The case involved the import of four used/second-hand color printing machines by the Company Appellant No. 1, out of which two machines were disposed of without seeking prior permission, leading to confiscation and a penalty of Rs. 5 lakhs. The adjudicating authority did not order confiscation of the machines not available. The penalty amount was contested for being exorbitant, citing a precedent for reduction. The Tribunal reduced the penalty to Rs. 30,000, aligning with the CIF value of the disposed goods. 2. Regarding the other two machines not put to actual use, they were ordered to be confiscated and a redemption fine of Rs. 5 lakhs imposed along with a penalty. The Counsel argued against confiscation and penalty due to the absence of a time-limit for usage under the Exim Policy. The Tribunal agreed, setting aside the confiscation, redemption fine, and penalty, as no legal obligation for immediate usage was proven. 3. The Director of the Company, Appellant No. 2, faced a penalty of Rs. 4 lakhs. The Counsel sought a reduction, which was opposed by the learned DR. Considering the lack of specific role attribution or proof against the Director, the penalty was reduced to Rs. 30,000. The impugned order was modified accordingly, with penalties to be appropriated from the pre-deposit amount and the balance refunded within two months. The appeals were disposed of with consequential relief, as per law.
|
