1997 (12) TMI 275

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... (d) of the Customs Act, 1962 (for short, the Act) read with Section 3(3) of the Foreign Trade (Development and Regulation) Act, 1992, with option to redeem on payment of fine of Rs. 10 lacs and imposing penalty of Rs. 1 lac under Section 112(a) of the Act is under challenge in this appeal. 2. Appellant imported a consignment of second hand photocopier machines of Japanese origin from a supplier in Singapore and presented Bill of Entry dated 9-11-1995 along with Invoice and other documents. The consignment was declared as consisting of 88 photocopying machines of various types and grades including 5 coloured machines of the total CIF value of Singapore $ 43,070 equal to Rs. 10,86,656/-. Examination showed that of the 88 photocopiers mentio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... 4. This is a case where the appellant deliberately waived show cause notice by letter dated 7-11-1995, copy of which has not been produced. If a copy had been produced, we could have definitely known the information made available on the basis of which he waived show cause notice. Submissions made in the course of personal hearing are referred to in the impugned order. The submissions made relate only to licensing angle and not valuation angle. Appellant has produced before us revised Invoice dated 22-12-1995 said to have been received from the supplier. It is stated that the appellant asked for a revised Invoice in view of the shortage of 12 machines and the addition of 6 machines. According to the Learned Counsel of the appellant the Invo .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... as confiscation is concerned, it is on account of import of goods which require specific licence but without licence. Therefore, the confiscation ordered cannot be found fault with. Appellant has serious grievance about the quantification of redemption fine. It is stated that the quantum of fine is excessive even considering the value of Rs. 111/2 lacs determined by the Commissioner. It is also contended that the statement of the Commissioner that these goods attract very high margin of profit is a vague statement. We asked the Learned Counsel for the appellant whether the appellant would like the matter to be sent back for re-quantification of redemption fine and penalty or whether the appellant would like the Tribunal to arrive at a reaso .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X