9911796707
TMI Blog2002 (1) TMI 654X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... scation of 31 printing machines under Section 111(o) of the Customs Act, however granting redemption on payment of Rs. 30 lakhs, while he has held that 22 machines sold in the local market are liable for confiscation but as the same are not available, they are not confiscated. He has imposed a penalty of Rs. 2 lakhs on the appellants under Section 112(a) of the Customs Act. The appellants had imported these 53 printing machineries having CIF value of Rs. 1,25,36,739/- through Tutucorin Port during March, 95 to May, 1999. They have taken clearance by executing an undertaking that they would utilise the same in terms of Para 25 of EXIM Policy 1992-97 and Para 5.4 of EXIM Policy 1997-2000 for actual user without licence and in terms of other c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... .T. 597 (Tribunal.-Del.). He also relies on the judgment in the case of M.K. Elumalai v. CC, Madras [1994 (74) E.L.T. 742 (Tribunal)]. He also submits that redemption fine and penalty is not imposable in the present case. He further submits that he is aware of the batch matter on the same issue decided by this Bench in the case of V. Soloman Jeyapandian and 18 others which has been remanded for de novo consideration. He submits that in this case the order is bad in law in so far as the machines which were still under possession of the appellants and being used by them. They cannot be ordered for confiscation with regard to the machine which has not violated EXIM Policy and hence he contends that the matter while being remanded, this issue i ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in reply, submits that there was no charge of under-valuation or any other violation. They had only committed the procedural violation in not obtaining prior permission from the licensing authorities for selling the goods to another actual user. For that, only nominal redemption fine and penalty has to be imposed in the light of the several judgments cited already in the remanded order. 6. On a careful consideration of the submission made, we notice that this Bench had already taken up a batch matter on the same issue of import of printing machinery and sold the same in the market in violation of the actual user condition as in the case of V. Soloman Jeyapandian and 18 others disposed of by Final Order Nos. 2039 to 2057/2001, dated 21-12 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
