2009 (8) TMI 1022

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ommissioner (Appeals), whereby redemption fine and penalties were reduced from Rs. 1,20,000/- to Rs. 1,00,000/- and penalty from Rs. 3,45,000/- to Rs. 20,000/-. 2. Ld. Jt. CDR reiterates the grounds of appeal. He submits that the respondents imported the goods without licence, which is implied mala fide on the part of tne respondent. He submits that the Original Authority had imposed penalty and .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... impugned order. After taking into account the value of the goods and detention charges and the amount of redemption fine and penalty, the value of the goods will be much more than the market price of the goods to Rs. 12 Lakhs as determined by the Revenue. He also submits that as per the Policy, there is no requirement of licence for importation of the monitors. He fairly submits that they are not .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... cy. The respondent paid duty of Rs. 1,96,758.00 on loaded value. I find that the Commissioner. (Appeals) reduced the amount of redemption fine and penalty after considering the materials available as per records. In view of that, there is no reason to interfere the order of the Commissioner (Appeals). Accordingly, the appeal filed by the Revenue is rejected. (Order dictated pronounced in open .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X