2009 (4) TMI 702

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... apital goods were shipped by the foreign supplier to the appellants on 1-8-2004 and the relevant bill of entry was filed on 9-9-2004. The goods were more than 10 years old and hence required a specific licence for their import under para 2.17 of the EXIM Policy, 2002-07 read with para 2.33 of the Handbook of Procedure Vol. I. The initial case was made out for confiscation of the goods under Sectio .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... /2005 which was remitted for re-adjudication of the question as to whether the goods were attempted to be imported prior to 1-7-2004 in terms of Section 111(d) of the Customs Act. The case was adjudicated afresh by the Commissioner (Appeals) who, vide the present impugned order, upheld the confiscation and quantum of fine and penalty; hence this appeal by the importers. 2. I have heard both side .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... i.-Mumbai) which has been upheld by the Hon ble Bombay High Court s decision reported in 2008 (229) E.L.T. A182 (Bom.) [the Revenue s appeal against the Tribunal s order was rejected by the High Court]. I, therefore, uphold the contravention of Section 111(d). In the case of Sony Ispat (supra), the Tribunal has reduced redemption fine from Rs. 8 lakhs to Rs. 1 lakh and set aside penalty and follow .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X