9911796707
TMI Blog2007 (4) TMI 495X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... chines would be allowed only against a licence issued for the purpose by the competent authority. On this basis, the department, after 100% examination of the goods, found that the imports were in violation of para 2.17 of the Foreign Trade Policy (2004-09) as amended by Notification No. 31/2005, dated 19-10-2005. After getting the value of the goods appraised by Chartered Engineers, the department also found that the importers had misdeclared value of the goods in their respective bills of entry. The department proposed to confiscate the goods and to impose penalties on the importers as well as to enhance the value of the goods for the purpose of assessment to duty. As the importers waived show-cause notice, the Commissioner proceeded to a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r the respondents have relied on Final Order No. 519/2006 dated 19-6-2006 passed by one of us sitting single in Appeal No. C/442/2005 (Commissioner of Customs, Chennai v. Vijex Office Equipment Pvt Ltd.) reported in 2006 (202) E.L.T. 123 (Tri.-Chennai). 3. After considering the submissions, we note that the only dispute is with regard to the quanta of fine and penalty. Learned Commissioner imposed fine and penalty to the extent indicated below :- S.No Appeal No. Appellant Respondents B.E. No. Date Declared Value Enhanced value Redemption fine Penalty Rs. Rs. Rs. Rs. 1. C/452/2006 CCE, (Sea-Imports), Chennai Cann Photocopiers (I) P. Ltd. 952981 27-1-2006 12,49,449 21,96,7 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and, learned counsel have claimed support from Vijex Office Equipment (supra) to their defence of the impugned orders. We find that, in the case of Vijex Office Equipment (supra), the imports of second-hand photocopiers had taken place at a time when the view which prevailed in judicial circles was that second-hand photocopiers were "capital goods" which could be imported without specific licence. The position changed in favour of the department only with the decision of the Hon'ble High Court of Kerala, which was rendered as late as in April, 2006. The import by M/s. Vijex office Equipment Pvt. Ltd. was prior to April, 2006 and, therefore, in their case, it was held that there was no reason to attribute mens rea to them. Such a considerati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oximately 5% of enhanced value of the goods. We find that the quanta of redemption fine imposed by the Commissioner on the respondents, barring one case, are below the benchmark and the same require to be marginally enhanced on the aforesaid considerations. The fine imposed by the Commissioner in respect of M/s. Sri Balaji Office Equipment is found to be approximating to 15% of the enhanced value of the goods and the same does not require modification. The quanta of penalty on the respondents, as imposed by the Commissioner, also require to be enhanced to approximately 5% of the value of the goods. Accordingly, the quanta of redemption fine and penalty on the respondents are modified as follows :- S. No Appeal No. Appellant Respondents ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
